Closure of Melbourne Grove to through traffic - new petition

[Andrew1011]

I think this fiasco clearly demonstrates that people need to keep a close eye on Dulwich Community Council agendas to ensure that something such as this doesn't slip under the radar without an opposing view being allowed to be aired.

Attendance at them is even more effective and I'm only sorry I wasn't able to get to that one.

[James Barber]

Hi Richard tudor,

I hadn't spotted my signature needs updating - many thanks for kindly pointing it out.

Hi ITATM,

Yes do contact the reporter - local newspaper are always looking for stories- they have seen this thread and realise it is contentious - hence why they're reporting it.

I've come across a spreadsheet of traffic count data - please see attached for those interested.

Hi Andrew1101,

At the Dulwich Community Council we were asked to close Melbourne Grove on a trial basis immediately. WE couldn't agree that but officers had indicated in advaince the costs range ?2,500-?10,000 for a study of the problem. So we decided to take that option. As the road is shared between East Dulwich and Village wards the cost is equally shared between those two wards devolved budget. I should point out that it appears 55% of residents already have signed up on that section of Melbourne Grove to support the deputation.

[James Barber]

Hi mockingbird, edhistory,

How have we not followed the deputation rules at the Dulwich Community council?

Hi Andrew1101, mockingbird,

The poor chap who was born and brought up in Bermondsey but killed in Tunisia left Bermondsey a number of decades ago. it seems unfair to criticise local Dulwich version of Southwark News/South London Press for not leading with a non Dulwich story.

Hi Andrew1101, Richard tudor,

No laws around when people can become parliamentary candidates - but I should have edited my auto signature as I've not gone through the reapproval process and applied to be selected again - simple oversight not to amend my auto signatures.

Hi BNG,

Residents from Melbourne Grove had been contacting ward councillors for many months, held meetings with residents, newspaper stories, letters to newspapers. This follows on from previous campaigns before I became a councillors - so clearly an ongoing sore. This has not suddenly come out of the wood work. Your awareness of it may be sudden.

[BrandNewGuy]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi BNG,

> Residents from Melbourne Grove had been contacting

> ward councillors for many months, held meetings

> with residents, newspaper stories, letters to

> newspapers. This follows on from previous

> campaigns before I became a councillors - so

> clearly an ongoing sore. This has not suddenly

> come out of the wood work. Your awareness of it

> may be sudden.

I live less than 100m from Melbourne Grove and, as you know, take an active interest in local issues. This thread was the first time I'd heard about the proposal.

[bels123]

.

[EDAus]

Agreed BrandNewGuy - I live on Ashbourne Grove and no-one has approached us until two days before the meeting, after months and months they could not find the time to pop around the corner consult us??

I am starting to believe that this was a deliberate attempt by Melbourne Traffic Action to ensure that any residents with concerns or opposition were not given the opportunity to speak out and be heard.

One of the reasons I moved to ED was the community minded spirit - where is this in Melbourne Grove South? Do not all the residents of ED deserve safe streets?

Where will all the traffic/cars go? This will merely redistribute traffic onto already congested neighbouring roads - Townley Road, Lordship Lane, East Dulwich Grove, Matham Grove, Chesterfield Grove and Ashbourne Grove. Congestion leads to additional traffic delays and additional pollution.

How will all the cars parked on Melbourne Grove South get out - not down Ashbourne Grove this road is already at capacity and with two banks on the main corner, at times cars cannot even exist. Chesterfild Grove are getting M&S at the top section in addition to the car wash? Are the residents of Melbourne Grove South going to give up their vehicles?

What about stopping the emergency services from using this route and avoiding the 9 lights/junction on Lordship Lane?

[XIX]

EDAus I agree.

Its all very well for Melbourne grove residents to want a traffic-free haven of their own to avoid their road becoming a 'rat-run' for outsiders, but presumably in removing their own convenient route northwards onto EDG and onwards towards Denmark Hill, Camberwell and central London (or anywhere!), they will use Ashbourne and Chesterfield, and we will become their 'rat-run'. But i guess they consider that ok......

[first mate]

What is odder is that our local councillor supports this, knowing, one imagines, the inevitable knock on effect on surrounding streets- what then, more road closures?

[Earl Aelfheah]

It's a road, sems reasonable for vehicles to use it. I don't get the 'rat run' thing. Are all non A roads to be access only? A lot of people live on Lirdship lane too. If people are sledding address that issue don't close the road

[Penguin68]

There are more voters in the (long) Melbourne grove than in any of the shorter streets which will be impacted by this selfish nimby-ism. So of course they get the councillors' support.

[Earl Aelfheah]

*speeding*

[BrandNewGuy]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> If people are sledding address

> that issue don't close the road

But the figures are clear - there is no significant speeding issue.

[intexasatthe moment]

I've come across a spreadsheet of traffic count data - please see attached for those interested.

Hi Andrew1101,

At the Dulwich Community Council we were asked to close Melbourne Grove on a trial basis immediately. WE couldn't agree that but officers had indicated in advaince the costs range ?2,500-?10,000 for a study of the problem. So we decided to take that option. As the road is shared between East Dulwich and Village wards the cost is equally shared between those two wards devolved budget. I should point out that it appears 55% of residents already have signed up on that section of Melbourne Grove to support the deputation.

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

Regards [email protected]

07900 227366

Liberal Democrat Councillor for East Dulwich Ward

Skype cllrjamesbarber

[www.jamesbarber.org.uk]

[twitter.com]

Attachments: Traffic_Flow_Data.xlsx (178.4KB)

I can't open the attached doc - anyone tell me what it says ?

[Siduhe]

intexasatthe moment Wrote:

-

> I can't open the attached doc - anyone tell me

> what it says ?

Does this version work for you - I have downloaded and reattached it. If not I'll convert it to an older format of workbook.

Edited to say it didn't work. Let me try the older format of workbook.

[edhistory]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi mockingbird, edhistory,

> How have we not followed the deputation rules at

> the Dulwich Community council?

Oh Mr Barber, what did you do?

You misread.

John K

[first mate]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> 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.

James,

So you seem to agree that that M&S will increase parking. How do you think closing Melbourne to traffic plus increased pressure on Chesterfield and other streets around Melbourne Grove will play out? Do remember also the holdups caused daily by the car wash and retail delivery juggernauts (soon to be stepped up under M&S)?

Hard to see how a massive building project like Harris will not impact on both traffic and parking, given say the current ridiculous situation on Upland Road, where large sections of the pavement have been taken over by builders.

Surely this new building project will be even larger?

I know you want to support local residents on Melbourne but you represent all of us locals so I am interested to know how you see the big picture developing re traffic management across the area, as well as parking?

[Jenny1]

I have now emailed all six relevant councillors with my concerns about the allocation of a potential ten thousand pounds towards a feasibility study for a scheme which does not appear to be part of any coherent traffic plan for the area.

Some have been kind enough to respond. It would not be correct to quote any private correspondence here but it's clear that they will be open to hearing other voices of concern. So I would urge other Forum users who share my view to contact the councillors too (noting that this scheme covers both Village and East Dulwich wards - so that means Rosie Shimmel, James Barber, Anne Kirby, Jane Lyons, Michael Mitchell and Charlie Smith - email addresses are on the Southwark website).

As a note James - I see above that you state that at the DCC meeting you and your colleagues were asked to close Melbourne Grove with immediate effect. Did the petition signed by 55% of residents of Melbourne Grove South make this precise request? I haven't been able to find the exact wording of what people signed up to. With thanks.

[intexasatthe moment]

Thanks Sidhue for trying . It's probably easy to find the way of opening it but I have no experience .

[Siduhe]

The one attached to my last post should work now. Let me know if not.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I'm coming to this late and don't want to read back through 7 pages, so forgive me if this has been answered, but what is the rationale, beyond the residents wanting fewer cars using the road? Is there any objective justification?

[speedbird]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> I'm coming to this late and don't want to read

> back through 7 pages, so forgive me if this has

> been answered, but what is the rationale, beyond

> the residents wanting fewer cars using the road?

> Is there any objective justification?

Isn't there a councillor that lives in the street? I seem to remember there being a problem before when an area of that street was changed into an orchard by some sort of council spending. They probably need quiet now...

Stunning that this nonsense can even occur. Push that traffic to the surrounding roads, another bright idea.

[EDAus]

Councillors can be contacted on the following email addresses:

East Dulwich Ward

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

Village Ward

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[James Barber]

Hi BNG, bels123,

We support around 30-50 bids each years - many much smaller than this bid admittedly. But we don't consult on them all with every resident. We'd spend all the budget consulting!

I suggested to them that they should start talking to residents on affected streets by their proposal.

Hi EDAus,

Weer will all the traffic go? Good question. Which is why we've agreed to fund a feasibility study to tell us. But of the 2,000+ vehicles IF we proceed and IF it passes public consultation I'd imagine 80% along Lordship Lane. That would increase it's flow from 16,000 today to around 18,000. Can it take that extra traffic?

hi first mate,

We support a feasibility study. Originally I support them having full speed humps. But then Cllr Charlie Smith suggested they be bolder. I think it might be a good idea. But until we've seen the feasibility study we just don't know.

Hi P68,

More voters on Ashbourne, Chesterfield individually than the section of Melbourne Grove proposed to have a closure. This isn't about votes. The next local elections are 3 years away and I might not even stand. It's purely about trying to do the best for the area and residents - not do the best for people who don't live in the area who want to get into central London quickly.

Hi XIX,

Why would anyone going along Lordship Lane keep going along Melbourne Grove if closed then Chesterfield or Ashbourne to re-emerge on Lordship Lane? If the traffic was so awful people were motivated to consider this- the stationary traffic wouldn't let them back out into Lordship Lane again.

Hi first mate,

Parking survey for the Harris ED Primary school suggests no parking issue. But I've not seen the detailed report just planning officer summary. The construction management plan for the building works has yet to be agreed but I expect it to minimise disruption as much as possible. The build will be undertaken I understand as much off site as possible - ensures better quality and quicker build. It needs to be ready to open September 2016.

M&S yes it will generate more traffic and parking which is why we objected repeatedly to it going ahead as now planned.

IF Melbourne Grove is closed I would expect a marginal decrease in traffic in other neighbouring roads such as Ashbourne and Chesterfield.

Bigger parking picture. Car ownership is creeping down. Vest making Lordship Lane more attractive. I hope that the area area can avoid parking pressure and a CPZ. I really wouldn't want that debate again locally - although with further North Dulwich CPZ likely I expect further parking pressure around ED station.

Hi Jenny1,

I don't recollect and haven't kept a copy - lots of names and addresses so shredded my copy. Sorry.

Hi speedbird,

A former councillor. Rather unfortunate she misheard some of the deputation and heckled several times - which certainly raised the temperature!

[XIX]

James,

I wasn't talking about lordship lane users turning onto melbourne grove and then back off via ashbourne and chesterfield.

I was talking about Melbourne Grove residents themselves - having blocked their own road off, whenever they want to drive anywhere vaguely northwards they would no doubt end up using Ashbourne/Chesterfield (and onto LL northbound) and therefore turn those roads into rat-runs. Which is a little ironic given they dont like their road being used as a rat-run.

[James Barber]

Indeed XIX. They would exit that way going northwards as indeed would Playfield etc. Equally residents on Ashbourne and Chesterfield wouldn't exit northwards via Melbourne.

You do currently have a surprising volume of vehicles using your and neighbouring streets. My hunch is that this would fall. but we'll have a better idea with the feasibility study.