Closure of Melbourne Grove to through traffic - new petition

[Andrew1011]

ed_pete Wrote:

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

>

> 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.

I suspect he's still smarting a bit after the unappreciative reception he got on the forum after his maiden posts on here last year.

[James Barber]

Hi bels123,

You have a valid point. I should have been more considered about what I said and not assuming everyone had been to the 24 June DCC meeting. Sorry. More recentLy I thought I had been more conciliatory and less gung ho. I will try harder.

Chuffed you're tempted to come to more DCC meetings. Please say hi to me next time.

Not sure the shouting loudest comment. The original group came to 24 June asking for their road to be closed and we replied by agreeing a feasibility study of a variety of options over a larger area that if this forum and the petitions are representative won't result in closing the road.

Hi spider69,

I did. mostly reiterating that we'd agree a feasibility study that would cover all the local roads as far as Towny.

That Chesterfield and Ashbourne Grove were given full speed bumps despite have less spending and traffic volume than Melbourne Grove via CGS funds several years ago. So CGS valid used of funds for helping fix such local problems that don't appear on Southwark wide priorities.

Please do come to the next meeting. We also covered the North Dulwich/Denmark Hill CPZ - recommended for approval.

Hi First Mate/ richard tudor,

When I've chaired DCC meetings in the past I would let Robin speak much more than she did last night. I have a lot of time for her. I often sound ideas out with her. She is a challenging person to chair. She has been given lots of air time at many DCC meetings in the past both as a councillor and ex.councillor. At the 24 June DCC meeting she was incensed and interrupted the other deputation repeatedly - it made the deputation look more considered and authorative. So I don't think last night was gagging but trying to avoid her monopolising the time available.

I'm hopeful that at future meetings she will be able to have her voice back - she knows and remembers lots of back stories that can help us reach better decisions - but not at the expense of others speaking.

[Bobby P]

James Barber Wrote:

> More recentLy I thought I had been more

> conciliatory and less gung ho. I will try harder.

I think this is true and thank you for trying, James.

When all the written communication and the door-knocking from the Traffic Action Group specifically and solely mentions the barrier, it is no surprise that people become very worried indeed. It was good to have "on the record" clarification at the DCC on the barrier point.

> a variety of options over a

> larger area that if this forum and the petitions

> are representative won't result in closing the

> road.

I'd be pretty astonished if it did, and thank you for commenting on the record at the meeting that you've had second thoughts personally about it.

> When I've chaired DCC meetings in the past I would

> let Robin speak much more than she did last night.

> I have a lot of time for her. I'm hopeful that at future meetings she will be

> able to have her voice back - she knows and

> remembers lots of back stories that can help us

> reach better decisions - but not at the expense of

> others speaking.

I don't think Robin was going to monopolise yesterday's meeting, but simply wanted to make one point, which was rather rudely refused. However, I agree with you she has brought a great deal of information to bear on this whole issue and clearly has great knowledge not only of recent history but also how to interpret surveys etc. - in this, she seems infinitely more qualified than some of the current Councillors on the panel who appear to have: no grasp of the detail whatsoever; vacuously emotive "touchy feely" arguments in place of reason; little interest in engaging with their constituents (including complete derision for this useful forum - without which so many issues would not become known to the ED populace); and a remarkably defensive attitude to dealing with petitions.

By the way, James, I exempt you from pretty much all of these charges, but you and Robin unfortunately seemed the exception rather than the rule yesterday.

But despite this, as bels123 says above, a generally productive meeting.

[rch]

James, just to be factually accurate... I interrupted the previous 24 June deputation ONE TIME, because what they were repeatedly claiming was factually inaccurate and this was clearly influencing councillors' decisions, leading up to the mad decision to allocate up to ?10,000 of public money to study a "problem" that had been previously consulted on and which technically doesn't exist. The other times I spoke out was when the chair called on me after I raised my hand, which I actually thought was incredibly democratic of him at the time (and wrote to him afterwards to thank him for letting me speak).

The point about the Sept 9th DCC meeting is that we went through the accepted constitutional deputation process... the leader gets to speak for 5 minutes uninterrupted and then other members of the deputation can respond to members questions or comments. During the exchange, there were several points that members were making that were inaccurate, but I wasn't allowed to respond even though I was formally part of the deputation.

Consequently, there are several points which I'll go into in future posts here on the forum, but bear in mind that I know this subject extremely well because of extended police and highways briefings over the years... but, more importantly, bear in mind that because the local communication chain with the council is now so bad (which is what actually led to the anti-barrier campaign), my summer was totally ruined because residents were literally stopping me in the street asking me what was going on and what they could do to fight it, because NONE OF US could get a straight answer out of anyone for almost two months.

On the positive side, as I specifically decided NOT to lead the anti-barrier campaign PRECISELY because I knew that I would be gagged, the result is that we now have a brilliant network of community activists with complementary skill sets who will continue to work together on other local issues.

As for chairing DCC meetings... when I chaired the DCC, I quickly learned to keep the agenda items as reduced as possible in order to allow residents and other councillors as much time as they wanted to express their opinions, even though the protracted discussions often drove me mad.

This was because I strongly believe in the democratic process... the DCC meetings are often the ONLY chance local residents have to hear their elected members speak openly or, more importantly, for residents to speak themselves and ask questions and have open discussions with the agencies who are presenting items that affect the community.

But, unfortunately, because of the overt political machinations, one of the things that became abundantly clear at the last DCC meeting is that local democracy in Dulwich is a now complete sham.

[spider69]

Why do Cllr Barbers reports always seem at odds with what seems to have happened.

I am sure people who were there can can confirm or deny what happened.

Anybody?

[rch]

ed_pete... I must remember to insert smiley faces when deploying ironic humour! :-)

spider... see Bobby P's account above, he was there.

But I don't want to focus on bashing, am going to go out and increase my Vitamin D levels in the sunshine, then post factual updates later on.

[James Barber]

Hi rch,

That's not my recollection of the 24 June. The chair had to ask you several times to stop interrupting. After that meeting you emailed a gracious apology. Eitherway I hope you don't feel gagged at future meetings.

Yes, I also learnt that lesson that smaller focused agendas can lead to better meetings. But the latest chair is learning and resisting the temptation for themselves to talk lots. So generally I think doing a good job.

[Scootingover]

Strange.

RCH is simply a member of the community and not a Councillor.

On what basis is any person prevented from making their points and being given equal treatment and airtime.

DCC- operating some bad practice and perhaps discriminating?

[rch]

No James, my memory is that there were several of us sitting together in the audience who were quite shocked at what was being said, so we might have been bantering loudly between us (especially when the leader of the deputation went well over his 5 minutes and then started bringing other supporters in to speak, which should have been stopped by the chair), but I only stood up and interrupted once during the question and answer period when the claims got too outrageous. I later asked the clerk to clarify what had been said from the recording, but it hadn't been recorded.

I'm just glad that other people have actually witnessed the gagging tactic for themselves now, especially as I was part of the deputation this time.

[spider69]

messageRe: Closure of Melbourne Grove to through traffic - new petition

Posted by richard tudor Yesterday, 04:51PM

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.

So not much hope this has been minuted.

[Grok]

Well, I was there at the last DCC meeting and this is my recollection/take:

RCH was indeed rudely gagged, and this was by Andy Simmons who was extremely rude to RCH! Having said that, RCH had an opinion on every item on the agenda, and the impression I had was that RCH expected special treatment throughout. Simmons needs to apologise though.

The pro barriers, 4 in total, looking to me as two couples, were in the audience and were noisy and dismisive when anti barriers were speaking.

Anti barriers had decided to take moral high ground and be brief and concillitory but I think this backfired and their arguments and points were weakened and watered down.

RCH is absolutely right in that it was pure politics - Simmons stating that if a parent is scared to take its child out of car on Melbourne Grove due to perception of speeding then whether cars are speeding or not does not matter, it is the parents perception that matters. What utter @#@&*%. Does fact, or anyone elses "perceptions" not matter? Are parents the only ones that matter?

The anti barriers had a parent speaker - well done.

The Councillors were in defence mode, no more and no less. They were not going to be criticised. The Labour cllrs were worse for this I'm sorry to say.

Helen Hayes could not have made herself more comfortable on the fence. Anne Kirby was just plain aggressive in denials of accusations not made at the meeting. Charlie Smith had to own up to suggesting the barrier when questioned but apparently it was the last in a long list of suggestions.

Barber arrived late but kept his tongue but his incredulous face pulling at anti barriers was childish in the extreme.

IMHO a non problem is having tax payers money thrown at it due to original misrepresentation, and local Cllrs are not big enough to admit to a mistake and change plans.

In my opinion, reality and perception there is NOT a problem with speeding on Melbourne Grove, no more than elsewhere, and tiny baby infants are not being mown down a la Deathrace.

My over riding memory of the DCC is the shameful politicing of Cllrs rather than common sense and doing what is right.

The upshot of all of this is that a non existent problem is still having resources thrown at it when completely not needed. Cllrs need to man and woman up.

[anoTher]

Oh dear me Grok, you are a very disillusioned person. I assume you live on MB and have young children? There is FYI no campaign outright for a barrier, simply a reduction in rat-running and speeding. If any of you could be bothered to communicate in a civil manner with those of us who've instigated the campaign you may begin to understand that we don't want a solution which will inconvenience surrounding areas, hence why many hours of doorstepping has been undertaken.

Guys, it's not rocket science!

[first mate]

The only sensible thing is to look at the whole area of ED, not just one road. If perception is being used by Cllrs as a decision making tool then we should be clear that perceived levels of speeding on Melbourne are no different from many other streets. Are we going to block every street in ED?

In my view perception is hardly grounds to spends large amounts of tax payers money. Facts are what we need, hard facts.

Descriptions of the DCC, councillors attending and their MO leave a very bad taste in the mouth.

[spider69]

In an earlier post I asked Cllr Cllr Barber if he spoke at the meeting hoping to hear if he had stood up and said I am changing my mind on the question of a barrier. But in true libdem mode however you sense he could change it again if the wind changes.

He replied on the forum

"Hi spider69,

I did. mostly reiterating that we'd agree a feasibility study that would cover all the local roads as far as Towny.

That Chesterfield and Ashbourne Grove were given full speed bumps despite have less spending and traffic volume than Melbourne Grove via CGS funds several years ago. So CGS valid used of funds for helping fix such local problems that don't appear on Southwark wide priorities."

But according to Grok

"Barber arrived late but kept his tongue but his incredulous face pulling at anti barriers was childish in the extreme."

Which in my mind confirms what Grok has said above that Cllrs have no backbone and feel they are so important they cannot admit when they have got it wrong to an open meeting. They are following a political agenda regarding traffic.

Will the barrier question disappear, no they will find a way.

[Grok]

For clarity, Spider69, JB did speak but he was not as vocal as he has been on here. The concensus by all was that ALL options, including the barrier, are on the table.

However, there was a Council Officet present and he was asked his professional opinion about the size of the consultation area concerning any road changes and his advice was to keep the consultation area as small as possible.

[intexasatthe moment]

" his professional opinion about the size of the consultation area concerning any road changes and his advice was to keep the consultation area as small as possible."

I wonder what the rationale is for that ?

[Andrew1011]

intexasatthe moment Wrote:

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

> " his professional opinion about the size of the

> consultation area concerning any road changes and

> his advice was to keep the consultation area as

> small as possible."

>

> I wonder what the rationale is for that ?

I've no idea because he was very eruditely challenged by one of the deputation ;-) who pointed out that, at a minimum the area must be that bordered by Townley Road, Lordship Lane, Grove Vale, Melbourne Grove (north side) and East Dulwich Grove back up to Townley Road (and include all roads within that boundary - plus Jarvis Road). To do otherwise would just be a farcical waste of resources.

The officer clearly also didn't know that Southwark Council have apparently been commissioned, or shortly are to be commissioned, to undertake an impact analysis of the new developments on the hospital site. There've been people on here suggesting assessing the impact will be pure speculation until they are fully up and operational. However, in my view, that dangerously ignores the impact of construction traffic in the meantime.

[Andrew1011]

anoTher Wrote:

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

> Oh dear me Grok, you are a very disillusioned

> person. I assume you live [sic] on MB and have young

> children? There is FYI no campaign outright for a

> barrier, simply a reduction in rat-running and

> speeding.

If you were involved in the Melbourne Traffic Action Group I am going to suggest that you are being disingenuous. Please look again at the correspondence sent to us by that group and you will see it only appeared to emphasise the need for a barrier. No bigger picture and no meaningful emphasis on alternative solutions.

[ed_pete]

A couple of things. I recall that both James Barber and Helen Hayes were late for the start of the meeting but both were in place before the anti barrier deputation started. I think that the chair should have allowed more time on the agenda for this topic as there were voices that went unheard both within the deputation and the audience.

The development of the Charter School East Dulwich and the new Health Centre will both require Transport Assessments as part of the planning process and I don't think these will be carried out by Southwark, more likley a specialist consultancy on behalf of the planning applicant. I suspect that these will consider the traffic impact on the surrounding roads but I doubt that either will stretch as far as Townley for instance. I'm not sure either whether they will provide the kind of data that people are looking for in relation to the perceived MG issues.

A guide to what is included is shown here

http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/travel-plans-transport-assessments-and-statements-in-decision-taking/transport-assessments-and-statements/

Assuming Harris Primary planning is already complete then there should be some Transport impact somewhere in the planning documents.

I think the reason Matt Hill from the council suggested that the study be restricted to MG but consider impacts on the surrounding roads was due to the amount it would cost (ie more than the sanctioned ?10k) but I may have misheard as people were talking across one another and the acoustics in the church aren't too great.

[Andrew1011]

ed_pete Wrote:

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

>

> The development of the Charter School East Dulwich

> and the new Health Centre will both require

> Transport Assessments as part of the planning

> process and I don't think these will be carried

> out by Southwark, more likley a specialist

> consultancy on behalf of the planning applicant.

You clearly didn't speak to the chair of governors of Charter School or hear her confirm at the vote stage (approximately 10pm) that they had commissioned a traffic impact assessment that very day, which was to be undertaken by Southwark Council on their behalf, and that they were now talking to the NHS developers to do it jointly. It was her who suggested that the three (school, medical centre and the CGS one should jointly work in order to maximise value and reach.

> Assuming Harris Primary planning is already

> complete then there should be some Transport

> impact somewhere in the planning documents.

It isn't complete.

[EDAus]

I spoke for the deputation at the Dulwich Community Council (DCC) on Wednesday 9th September 2015.

In summary the Councillors:

* listened to our deputation and concerns, which we detailed as much as possible given the time granted to us. Over 310 people signed our petition.

* failed to withdraw the funding for a feasibility study and gave full support to the claims made by Melbourne Grove residents. The feasibility study will go ahead and be funded up to ?10k from the Cleaner, Greener Safer budget.

* gave assurances to the deputation that the feasibility study would incorporate wider traffic calming measures - not just a barrier, take into consideration local residents concerns and the terms of reference would be drawn up professional Council Officers.

Since conduct at the meeting has become a hot topic:

* as the main speaker for the deputation I introduced myself to the members of Melbourne Grove Traffic Action sitting in the audience, in the meeting break prior to our deputation speaking.

* personally, I feel that a number of Councillors were dismissive of our deputations concerns, aggressively defended the decision against evidence presented and attacked our deputation/residents group for organising an alternative view point and presenting at the DCC.

* one Councillor described the campaign as 'hysterical' - a gendered term. When was the last time you heard a campaign lead by a man/men described as 'hysterical'?

* our deputations submission was interrupted numerous by members of Melbourne Grove Traffic Action in the audience, they were not asked to stop. While I admire their passion, I do feel that we should have been given the opportunity to represent an alternative view to our elected representatives without interruption. I do feel that the DCC continues to show favouritism to Melbourne Grove Traffic Action.

* one member of our deputation was denied the right to make any comments or statements. From my perspective this was clear and pointed - a deliberate gagging attempt. It makes me wonder why are the DCC so committed to silencing this person?

When asked the Council Officer explained that Melbourne Grove South was not a priority for the council and no central funding would be provided: any studies, proposals or implementation costs would need to be funded by Cleaner, Greener, Safer budget. It was therefore recommended that the scope of the feasibility study be limited to Melbourne Grove South.

Charter School, NHS and Harris developments will be required to undertake traffic studies on their developments as part of their planning applications. This further calls into question the judgement of the DCC to allocate up to ?10k for an additional traffic study of the same area. The rational thing would be to incorporate them into one set of analysis or study. There's no point in running a traffic study if the actions taken as the result of another invalidate it.

Our deputation have made the offer to meet with Melbourne Grove Traffic Action to work on issues jointly, they have responded that they are currently considering how they would like to proceed. I hope they'll choose to change strategy and try to engage with the concerns of local residents.

If people wish to make their views known about the DCC decision to fund the feasibility study related to traffic calming measures on Melbourne Grove South - I would suggest emailing the Councilors who sit on the DCC outlining your concerns, details below:

East Dulwich Ward

[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Village Ward

[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

College Ward

[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

I know that committed people in our deputation, who have all worked exceedingly hard over the last eight weeks (big thank-you to everyone) will continue to engage with local residents, Council Officers and will input into the feasibility study proposed for Melbourne Grove South. I am sure that further developments will be communicated to both the EDF and the wider community.

If anyone has any questions, concerns or idea's please see free to ask me here or message me privately.

[ed_pete]

Andrew1011 Wrote:

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

>

> > Assuming Harris Primary planning is already

> > complete then there should be some Transport

> > impact somewhere in the planning documents.

>

> It isn't complete.

Andrew if you search the Southwark planning portal for application number 14/AP/4580, the Harris Primary School, application, you can see the Transport Assessment document produced in December 2014 by a firm called Transport Planning Associates. I'd attach it but the document is too large.

[EDAus]

James -

When Ashbourne Grove was last resurfaced, residents requested a barrier - this was flatly rejected. As residents we actively sort out other options which lead to the implementation of the speed bumps. We discussed this as a street and formed a consensus.

Grok -

It must be remembered we all live together in the same community, not that far from each other, our kids go to the same schools, we attend the same churches/community groups. Both groups want to make a positive contribution to the local community, we just disagree about the best way to achieve this.

anoTHer -

Still in the same house I have been for the last eight weeks and haven't seen anyone from Melbourne Grove Traffic Action at my door?

I have received two letters through the door with statements such as:

22 or 23 June - 'signed a petition supporting a barrier point between Tell and Ashbourne Grove', 'Our support for a barrier'

31 August - 'we've received some funding for a feasibility study into a barrier across Melbourne Grove'.

You seem very keen to suggest that there is no reason for 310 people to sign a petition.

Melbourne Grove Traffic Action need to stop characterising the anti-barrier group as irrational and start actually listening to locally impacted residents concerns.

Melbourne Grove Traffic Action had the opportunity to discuss our concerns both at the meeting on 9 September and afterwards, they failed to take these opportunities.

[first mate]

I am really now understanding what RCH meant when she suggested democracy was dead in ED. It is now crystal clear that James and his Labour buddies cannot be trusted to listen or to learn. I also agree about use of the word "hysterical" to characterise the majority view...most revealing.

[Abe_froeman]

Blaming the electorate for "unnecessary angst" after telling the press "... I would want a barrier" before any evidence emerges of the necessity or utility of said barrier seems particularly arrogant.