Closure of Melbourne Grove to through traffic - new petition

[richard tudor]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> No I didn't say that. The petition clearly showed

> their addresses on Melbourne Grove. I haven't

> checked whether they're all on the electoral roll

> at those addresses. I haven't checked if you are

> richard.

Only on Tuesday. Wednesday I am Freda and then I please myself

[rch]

I would love to see the two-page officer report!!

[richard tudor]

You have more chance of winning the lottery

[speedbird]

richard tudor Wrote:

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

> James Barber Wrote:

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

> -----

> > No I didn't say that. The petition clearly

> showed

> > their addresses on Melbourne Grove. I haven't

> > checked whether they're all on the electoral

> roll

> > at those addresses. I haven't checked if you

> are

> > richard.

>

> Only on Tuesday. Wednesday I am Freda and then I

> please myself

A little sinister in your message James Barber...

[lpool]

James

You maintain two way street but have a no entry at one end. Personally I will be opposing this scheme as it stands. I find it hard to believe there are not more effective traffic calming measures that could be deployed.

[ED_moots]

Isn't this just militant nimbyism? Wouldn't it be nice if I could move these pesky cars off my doorstep, doesn't matter where they go really.

This being London and not rural Derbyshire for example it's population is steadily attracting more people and cars (although not on the southern stretch of Melbourne Grove according to the stats).

Some people do speed and always will; although I've been quite impressed by the general acquiescence to the recently reduced speed limit. Blocking roads just means those people speed somewhere else and maybe go faster if they have to go further.

Melbourne Grove is a fairly busy cut through but Blocking off roads seems extreme to me. What about making it 1 way from EDG to ashbourne grove?

[ED_moots]

Duh. I think I just made the same suggestion as ipool (or is it lolol)?!

[first mate]

There seem to be some major designs on road and traffic management in ED that being wrought in a rather piecemeal but I think very deliberate manner. I see the building out of the pavement next to N x has started. We are going to have significantly reduced parking all over the shop. Once Harris and M&S builds are underway, the Townley road fiasco installed and Melbourne Grove shut to traffic, can we really believe that life will get better....if you ride a bike possibly, but for the majority of transport users things are about to get worse, a lot worse.

Is there a way to view the Melbourne list of signatures?

[Pugwash]

I use Melbourne Grove only when LL is too blocked with traffic. You cannot go fast down Melbourne from LL as roadway is too narrow in parts for 2 cars to pass each other. Equally from ED Grove down to Grove Vale, especially by the bend near locksmith's you get larger vehicles which cause more problems.

[James Barber]

Hi first mate,

The junction of Lordship Lane with North Cross Road is not reducing parking. The parking place just before the bus stop there - that meant buses couldn't get near the pavement reliably I'm told are being relocated by changing other lines.

Not sure how that see's a dramatic reduction in parking across the shop?

M&S will put significantly more pressure on the area. Not much we can do about that now - we objected to the planning permission on the basis of parking but they got their planning permission.

Harris school would tend to put pressure on an area that I've never had casework about parking stress. Doesn't guarantee anything but it gives me hope abut that building not causing parking problems.

[wulfhound]

Couple of links you may find relevant..

http://www.hernehill.org.uk/campaigns/ruskin-park-area-road-danger-reduction-campaign/concept-traffic-evaporation-reallocating-r

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearing_traffic

Certainly the number of times I've thought, "b****r the South Circular, I'm taking the train instead" suggests the theory might have at least some mileage.

[Penguin68]

M&S will put significantly more pressure on the area. Not much we can do about that now - we objected to the planning permission on the basis of parking but they got their planning permission.

I had understood that it was the site owner, and not M&S, who had applied for planning permission - M&S has always been referenced as the retail tenant but had no interest in the site configuration as such, above ground floor level. In so far as, as a retail outlet, it would attract customers (something which - in the guise of Waitrose - has been a stimulus for councilor Barber) who might want to visit by car and park locally, that has always been an issue once a retailer who needed the car-park area for storage was involved. Only Iceland stored where it also sold (in freezers). By all means blame the site owner for pressure on parking, but to blame M&S appears to be hopping on the 'don't like M&S' bandwagon somewhat unfairly. (NB I do not and have never worked for M&S, it's suppliers or associates, nor do I own shares (other than those owned by my pension fund, if any) in the company).

[jaywalker]

A ridiculous scheme. Worse, I will be directly affected but have still had no official information or consultation of any kind. ED_Moots, I'm in total agreement with you. I wonder really how this proposal saw the light of day - it is so obviously flawed.

[ED_moots]

Front page of the local paper. 10/10 for effort there, quite the PR machine is in motion. A local man murdered on the beach in Tunisia gets bumped to page 4. Have word with yourselves Southwark News.

[Andrew1011]

ED_moots Wrote:

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

> Front page of the local paper. 10/10 for effort

> there, quite the PR machine is in motion. A local

> man murdered on the beach in Tunisia gets bumped

> to page 4. Have word with yourselves Southwark

> News.

That is appalling, as is the relegation of the local person murdered in Tunisia story to page 4. Yet more hyperbole to justify this non-strategic meddling. I wonder who's at the root of this making front page news?

[richard tudor]

A more to the point why does Cllr Barber not put forward the views of those against.

As an aside why does he still promote parliamentary Lib Dem candidate on his thread. It's over dead and died.

[Andrew1011]

richard tudor Wrote:

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

> As an aside why does he still promote

> parliamentary Lib Dem candidate on his thread.

> It's over dead and died.

I seem to recall there's something in electoral law which doesn't allow reference to being a parliamentary candidate outside of the official general election campaign period. Presumably if he's again selected by his party for the 2020 elections he may have to declare his campaigning expenses, due this ongoing reference, right back to 8th May 2015 and include that in the total. Let's hope so, anyway. ;-)

[ianr]

ED_moots Wrote:

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

> Front page of the local paper. 10/10 for effort

The full article: http://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/10k-boost-for-road-safety-campaigners-in-dulwich/

[mockingbird]

Southwark News like any other paper wants to report the full picture. Don't be put off - contact the journalist if you have a different view and some facts to relay. Point them to this thread. Get to the root of the signatories and the bigger perspective of the limited benefits to few and the need to be community minded?

They will be interested..............

[edhistory]

"Cllr James Barber said: ?The deputation was particularly impressive. They had six speakers and a group of around fifteen to 20 supporters. They had put together a marvellous information pack.""

[mockingbird]

ed history

a rather entertaining statement and a shame the Cllrs did not follow their own process:

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200348/democracy_in_southwark/354/taking_a_deputation

- Up to six people can form the deputation, including a nominated spokesperson.

- At the meeting (does this sound how it went?)

The chair of the meeting will ask councillors to hear the deputation and, assuming they agree, you will be invited to speak for up to five minutes. Prepare what you want to say in advance so that you can get across all the points you want to make. Councillors may want to ask some questions afterwards so it's worth trying to think in advance of what they might ask you so you are prepared to answer. The spokesperson or any other member of the deputation can respond.

Although you cannot take part in any debate that follows your deputation, you may be invited to stay and listen.

[ED_moots]

Thanks mockingbird but that is legwork the paper should be doing. Call me cynical but the 'story' seems fed IMO and by someone with enough clout to make it front page.

I don't see the article promoting the melbourne barrier idea, only a successful lobby for a feasibility study which will only not be a complete waste of public money if:

1. Realistic solutions for any real traffic problems are tabled and

2. An official consultation of appropriate scale is carried out

[first mate]

Agree this is a put up job. As a local I find it odd that such an expensive and suddenly high profile project has been so low profile until now.

I recall when certain councillors were keen to drive through CPZ they made much of it all being about providing support to a local street and residents, claiming no other agenda, they were simply doing what the residents wanted.

This current scheme just seems a new chapter in the wider agenda to get cars out of ED and force us to use bikes, by whatever means. Again; Townley, introduction of restricted parking throughout ED, building out pavements on Lordship Lane, talk of closing off streets, all at a time when three major developments have been given the thumbs up. Councillors that fought hard for CPZ and lost will seize these new opportunities to increase pressure on car users and in this, they are seemingly at one with Southwark Labour.

[BrandNewGuy]

And as has been shown repeatedly, there is no more 'speeding danger' on Melbourne Grove than on other local roads. A mendacious bit of scaremongering for an absurd scheme. I have no doubt it won't happen, but what gets my goat is the ease with which up to ?10,000 was chucked at a feasability study. Remember, folks, when Southwark come bleating to us about the savage cuts in some other matter, remind them of their dumb profligacy.

And remember, Cllr. Barber is an active proponent of all things cycling. Anything that helps that agenda, no matter how absurd or profligate, gets his support.

[intexasatthe moment]

mockingbird Yesterday, 11:38PM

Southwark News like any other paper wants to report the full picture. Don't be put off - contact the journalist if you have a different view and some facts to relay. Point them to this thread. Get to the root of the signatories and the bigger perspective of the limited benefits to few and the need to be community minded?

They will be interested..............

good point mockingbird