former East Dulwich councillor - how can I help?

Peckhamgatecrasher · August 15, 2015

Great! If a rat-run and a school are the precedents, please may we block off Adys Road?

James Barber · August 17, 2015

Hi Peckhamgatecrasher,

Adys Road a little outside East Dulwich ward - but if it was closed Crystal Palace Road would be less busy ;o)

Hi Andrew1011,

Are you speaking as resident of Melbourne Grove?

The police said they were amazed at how many vehicles use the southern section of Melbourne Grove each day. Looking at traffic stat for all our local roads it clearly is experiencing much more traffic than 90% of the other residential roads in the area.

hi BNG,

The submission from the deputation at June DCC showed a majority of residents of Melbourne Grove. So perhaps I over egged when I said most and should have stated majority. This assumes non have since changed their minds.

Hi F1,

I don't know Clapham.

How have they solved this type of problem? Perhaps a visit is in order.

hi Robin,

I think it does. you think it doesn't. The council officer report should be able to nail this one way or another.

But 15% of traffic going over 25mph is many hundreds of vehicles each day speeding. You think this means no speeding problem as average speed 19mph. I think 15% going greater than 25mph is a speeding problem.

first mate · August 17, 2015

James,

I've posted this question a number of times now, so hoping you will see it this time?

You asked which DCC I was referring to re double yellows on Chesterfield. Please see below, posted by you, where it states you were consulted on the Order that covers those double yellows.

I want to know if when consulted you gave a yes or a no? If yes, for what reason and why for new lengths of double yellows to be installed on Chestefield?

You were consulted on 10 April 2014.

When first asked about double yellows you emailed the council and posted their response, along with this below

"

Thus is the email I've received and I've responded asking for a guarantee no additional lining of any kind or double yellow lines etc will be added as a consequence.

"

Southwark Council - Member enquiry

Our Reference: 551054

________________________________________

Dear Councillor Barber

Thank you for your enquiry dated 12th August 2015, in which you requested information regarding yellow lines in the East Dulwich ward. I believe you are referring to the recent making and publication of a 'consolidation order'.

The traffic order which has been advertised is known as a 'consolidation order' which is exactly this -a consolidation of existing traffic orders to ensure these remain manageable and easy to follow. This London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) Consolidation Order 2015(1) ('the 2015 Order') consolidates the London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) Consolidation Order 2012(2) ('the 2012 Order') together with the 60 subsequent amendment orders amending the provisions of the 2012 Order.

It is deemed best practice (e.g. in guidelines issued by the British Parking Association) for local authorities undertaking decriminalised parking enforcement to regularly consolidate and maintain the traffic orders forming a basis for that enforcement.

This follows the Consolidation Order process laid out in Regulation 21 of the Local Authorities? Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (Statutory Instrument 1996 No. 2489).

There are no new restrictions being introduced by way of this consolidation order.

The yellow lines you have specifically queried at Ashbourne and Chesterfield and Melbourne Grove were originally included in an order made on 8 May 2014 as part of the Lordship Lane area traffic order and sign decluttering review . The name of the Order was the London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) (Amendment No. 32) Order 2014(3) ('the 2014 Order').

As part of our review process, surveys on street were undertaken by an officer to check that the road markings in existence matched the traffic orders. In the case of Ashbourne Grove and Melbourne Grove the traffic order waiting and loading definitions would have been amended to reflect more closely the markings as existed on street. Chesterfield Road had new lengths of restrictions installed at this time.

Statutory stakeholders and ward members including yourself were consulted in the process of making the 2014 Order, on 10 April 2014.

I trust this addresses your concerns but if you have any questions about this response please do not hesitate to contact me.

"

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

Regards [email protected]

07900 227366

Liberal Democrat Councillor for East Dulwich Ward

Skype cllrjamesbarber

[www.jamesbarber.org.uk]

[twitter.com]

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was august 15, 06:33am by first mate.

BrandNewGuy · August 17, 2015

James Barber Wrote:

> hi BNG,

> The submission from the deputation at June DCC

> showed a majority of residents of Melbourne Grove.

> So perhaps I over egged when I said most and

> should have stated majority. This assumes non have

> since changed their minds.

I thought you'd said they wanted traffic calming of some kind. That's got nothing to do with preventing cars from using the road. Until we see the petition, we won't know for sure. Please can someone post it here.

DulwichFox · August 17, 2015

I really cannot see why there is a problem..

I certainly would not use Melbourne Grove as a rat run. Its simply too narrow.

The only time I ever use it is when walking to Dulwich Hospital..

Where in other places such systems have be set up (there are many) we see more traffic with drivers

driving around lost in the Labyrynths of one way streets, no entrys and blocked of roads .

DulwichFox

Jenny1 · August 17, 2015

Hi BNG

You may have seen my posts on the Melbourne Grove thread about the so-called 'petition'. I was sent a copy by Southwark Council officers. I do not think it right to post it publicly as it contains people's private details.

The document is in fact a 'deputation request' - almost a full side of A4 stating concerns about the speed and volume of traffic on Melbourne Grove and asking for a barrier, more double yellow lines, and any other traffic calming measures that the council can come up with. This page is signed by five people. Attached to this document are a further five and half pages of signatures. There is no statement at the top of any of these pages indicating what measure the signatories are supporting. This means that these pages of signatures do not constitute a 'petition' in favour of a defined measure. The rules on petitions are clear.

So these signatures can only be viewed as adding weight to a general request for traffic calming measures. They do not constitute support for a barrier. They may have been gathered at any time during an ongoing campaign which began with a request for full speed bumps.

I have also seen the officers' report which Southwark Highways Department prepared in response to concerns about traffic on Melbourne Grove. This report was made available to Councillors at the last DCC meeting. You'll see rch quoting from it in recent posts here and on the Melbourne Grove thread. The report makes it clear that the Highways Department do not think the current data on speed and volume of traffic on Melbourne Grove make it a priority. They do not express support for a barrier or speed bumps. They are interested in extending the double yellow lines. It's interesting to note that at least one councillor at the last DCC meeting - on seeing the report - chose not to give their support to a feasibility study looking into traffic calming on Melbourne Grove (including a barrier).

As I understand it there is a degree of pointlessness in entering into a feasibility study when the Highways Department have expressed such a view.

I'm co-ordinating with a number of local residents who want a more informed and joined-up approach to traffic management in the area. We now have a formal petition - opposing a barrier on Melbourne Grove - on change.org and a central email address for anyone interested in this issue. Details will be posted shortly on the Melbourne Grove thread.

Abe_froeman · August 17, 2015

Hi James, is there a section of the Southwark website that has details of what the "council officer report" will be based on? I am particularly keen to understand the scope or terms of reference of the feasiblity study.

Many thanks

BrandNewGuy · August 17, 2015

Jenny1 Wrote:

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

> Hi BNG

>

> The document is in fact a 'deputation request' -

> almost a full side of A4 stating concerns about

> the speed and volume of traffic on Melbourne Grove

> and asking for a barrier, more double yellow

> lines, and any other traffic calming measures that

> the council can come up with. This page is signed

> by five people. Attached to this document are a

> further five and half pages of signatures. There

> is no statement at the top of any of these pages

> indicating what measure the signatories are

> supporting. This means that these pages of

> signatures do not constitute a 'petition' in

> favour of a defined measure. The rules on

> petitions are clear.

Tnanks, Jenny, that's what I thought. So can we not refer to a petition given that it clearly did not exist in the form that some claim it did?

Jenny1 · August 17, 2015

Well I think it's important - when referring to it - to make it clear that it's not a 'formal petition', but rather a list of signatures submitted in support of a deputation request. It might sound like a 'nit picking' distinction - but actually it makes all the difference in the world.

BrandNewGuy · August 17, 2015

And only five signatures can be shown to be in support of the deputation request.

Jenny1 · August 17, 2015

I wouldn't quite phrase it like that.

Certainly the five signatures can be seen as 100 per cent in support of the long statement - the 'deputation request'.

But the council also seems happy to accept the fact that five and a half pages of signatures have been submitted in 'support' of the deputation. But this support is very general. Those signatures can't be seen as being in 'support' of any specific measure because there's no statement at the top of any of the pages of signatures. If you want to make a 'formal petition' you have to make sure that there's a brief, clear statement at the top of all of the pages stating what people are signing up to - for understandable reasons.

Nothing 'wrong' has been done here in submitting the deputation request - and the accompanying pages of signatures - to the DCC. The only problem appears to be in the interpretation that some councillors may have placed on what's been presented to them. They may have interpreted it as a 'formal petition' in favour of a specific measure - whereas in fact it was a list of signatures showing general support for traffic calming.

rch · August 17, 2015

Actually, of the five signatures included in support of the deputation request, one name actually doesn't include a signature, just a printed name and address, so technically it doesn't qualify. Also, I believe that another of the five names listed has actually moved out of London now.

This process has been very useful in that we've learned a lot about the legal and constitutional aspects of petitions, which is one reason why we have delayed until we are sure of all the parameters.

bob · August 17, 2015

Dear James.

Is there any chance on speeding up the road work's Lordship Lane/ North X road it's been month's now again no one there to day.

Thank's Bob S

James Barber · August 17, 2015

hi Jenny1,

The document you've described is different to the one councillors received. The one we were emailed and handed had photos and ore pages.

Hi bob,

I've asked twice now. IT is taking a ridiculously long time.

Abe_froeman · August 17, 2015

James, will those documents be made available to the public, alongide the terms of reference or scope of the feasibility study?

Many thanks

Jenny1 · August 17, 2015

Hi James. No. It's the same document. It's simply that when I asked to see the deputation request and supporting 'petition' I was sent the essential items - the request itself and the attached pages of signatures. The council officers - understandly - did not see a need to send any of the covering photos, maps etc.

bob · August 17, 2015

James.

Thank you for your speedy reply.

Bob S

Pity the contractor's are not like minded

first mate · August 17, 2015

James,

I've posted this question a number of times now, so hoping you will see it this time?

You asked which DCC I was referring to re double yellows on Chesterfield. Please see below, posted by you, where it states you were consulted on the Order that covers those double yellows.

I want to know if when consulted you gave a yes or a no? If yes, for what reason and why for new lengths of double yellows to be installed on Chestefield?

You were consulted on 10 April 2014.

When first asked about the prospect of more double yellows on the forum this year you emailed the council and posted their response, along with this below