former East Dulwich councillor - how can I help?

@Woodwarde · August 12, 2015

How can this be? This is a Consolidation document and anything in it should have been through the TMO process.

This is what the Local Parking Amendments (LPA) prcess is about, with its forward plan and approval process:

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200140/parking_projects/2766/local_parking_amendments/3

rch · August 12, 2015

There would have been a traffic order... my guess is that this was done as part of the Melbourne Road resurfacing, but we just didn't notice it.

I don't drive so I really didn't log it until I specifically looked.

@Woodwarde · August 12, 2015

Would it not have needed to be part of the LPA process too if it was a change to restrictions, not simply road resurfacing?

rch · August 12, 2015

Yes, but engineers try to do everything together to save money. But these junctions are on the ED ward side of the road and I was a cllr on the Village side of the road, so I probably didn't pay attention.

Don't forget that there have been a lot of discussions about residents "traffic concerns" over the past ten years, so it's not surprising that the double yellows have been implemented at some point as it's the most obvious and cost effective first step.

Am not saying that I agree, am just explaining the process...

James Barber · August 12, 2015

This 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.

"

first mate · August 12, 2015

James,

Thanks for this. Do you recall being informed?

It is a shame that, to the best of my knowledge, residents on Chesterfield were not made aware of the "new lengths of restrictions" to be installed at the time. Why did the officer pick out this street for special treatment? Do we know where the impetus for these changes came from? Is it anything to do with impending M&S development?

This is what I mean by lack of transparency and a creeping agenda being done slowly, bit by bit.

rch · August 12, 2015

Ah!! The 10th April 2014 was conveniently close to the May 2014 council elections... so this could have easily slipped under the radar.

I've just scrolled through the 471 page document again and it actually looks like the double yellows listed for Tell are for the junct of Tell and EDG, not Tell and Melbourne, so apologies. It's a pain not having the doc on paper...

James Barber · August 12, 2015

I've been assured in writing no new parking restrictions of any kind will result. It genuinely does appear a paper/administrative exercise.

Hence why we've not launched a campaign to oppose anything!

first mate · August 13, 2015

James, hear you about "no new parking restrictions" but can we also say no reduction in areas on which to park? Two slightly different things.

Still confused about how and why Chesterfield came to be singled out for special increased lengths of double yellows in the 2014 Order that appears in the consolidation doc . Did you approve this measure when you were informed or was your approval not necessary to that process?

rch · August 13, 2015

In addition to first mate's question, what's concerning is that although the current TMO document, that we have been discussing, doesn't include any new double yellow lines on the Melbourne Grove junctions, the deputation at the June 24th DCC meeting states the following:-

"To ask councillors to support a consultation and our campaign on the idea of a barrier placed across our road between Ashbourne and Tell Groves, and for better signage and double yellow lines."

So, there IS, theoretically, a campaign to implement more double yellow lines on Melbourne Grove, in addition to the current ones cited in the TMO.

Futhermore, the officer's report to the councillors regarding the "concerns" on Melbourne Grove states that they DO intend to propose to introduce double yellow lines at all the junctions on Melbourne Grove to improve sight lines. Here's the relevant section of the report:-

"In the interim, to improve road safety for all users officers propose to introduce double yellow lines at all the junctions on Melbourne Grove to improve sight lines. Recent observations noted a significant level of parking very close to junctions. This is in contravention of the?Highway Code - Waiting and parking (242) DO NOT stop or park: ?opposite or within 10 metres (32 feet) of a junction, except in an authorised parking space.?.? Double Yellow lines will be introduced, subject to consultation, to clarify where it is appropriate to park.

In regard to the investigation of?new yellow lines, we will assess this during June/July 2015 and, assuming approval by the community council, works could begin in December 2015.?Read about how and when we assess Quarter 2 local parking amendment items."

So, although the current TMO doc doesn't include any new double yellow lines, it looks like a proposal - theoretically supported by 138 signatures (which is a separate questionable matter) - will be made by highways officers to a future DCC meeting (probably Sept 9th) for approval with a view towards implementing the double yellows on all the Melbourne junctions.

Therefore, councillors are now in a real bind, having supported the requests of the MGTAG and approved funding to investigate the actions requested by the June 24th deputation, which includes a request for double yellow lines.

James Barber · August 13, 2015

Hi Robin/RCH,

AS per your post officers have recommended - it was only a matter of time - looking at placing double yellow lines to make it more easily enforceable when people park across corners making it hard to cross the road for people. I would prefer this done with kerb build-outs to narrow crossings but we can't afford this at this time.

Officers will propose what I consider a ridiculous length of lining - circa 10m from the corner in each direction a la North Dulwich Triangle proposals. I will seek to persuade fellow councillors for the minimum possible.

As for double yellow lines more generally. yes, this baffles me as well.

mockingbird · August 13, 2015

It could be afforded if the unnecessary ?10k CGS underspend was allocated to it rather than repeating an already current and clear traffic survey? Good idea?

rch · August 13, 2015

You got there before me, mockingbird!

A build out at the Ashbourne junction without a raised table would probably cost around ?15K... I'll talk to the Ashbournes and see if they want to put in a proper CGS bid in Sept.

A ped island in the Chesterfield junction would probably cost around ?5K-7K. 15+5=20, which is the same cost as a barrier.

I'd really love to speak to an engineer to work out a better way to control the PERCEIVED traffic concerns long that stretch... build outs are so much more neighbourly than a barrier.

mockingbird · August 13, 2015

Would work better all round I expect.

James Barber · August 13, 2015

Hi Mickingbird,

Kerb build outs would cost circa ?10k-?20k per junction. Melbourne Grove has what 10.

We don't have that level of cash each year. We can afford either closing or new speed humps or some other limited capital spend from CGS budgets.

Hi Robin,

You know we don't have that level of budget. Several times you've intervened in this debate knowing your suggestion isn't uneconomic. I'm unclear why you're being disingenuous about this. Or the sense of urgency for something that will be decided in January ish time initially and then June/July finally.

richard tudor · August 13, 2015

If people used old fashioned common sense remembering that pavements are for walking on all this talk about closure would not be needed.

If you want to cross look to make sure all is clear. Common sense from the past not tinged with some underlying green, we must get rid of cars, agenda.

If all Cllrs actually applied this train of thought many of these ideas would not see the light of day.

rch · August 13, 2015

I'm just going to keep saying it over and over, James. The stats don't show any significant traffic issues on Melbourne Grove.

We don't NEED build outs on every junction... the only junctions that should even be considered are Ashbourne and maybe Chesterfield (although Chesterfield junct is wide enough to implement ped islands, like at Red Post Hill, which only cost about ?5K each).

You yourself have just quoted the same cost for a build out that I have, around ?15K for Ashbourne. The engineer briefing confirmed that it will cost between ?20-30K to implement a barrier, not including consultation or feasibility study.

So, although doing nothing is probably the best way forward, directly addressing the perceived problems in the narrow part of Melbourne is by far the most cost effective way forward.

I know some residents down at the Ashbourne end of Melbourne who are against the barrier, I'll explain to them and the Ashbournes how to submit a CGS bid for one junction build out if they want to.

first mate · August 13, 2015

James,

You have not answered my question about the special lengths of double yellows on Chesterfield, as described in the new consolidation doc.

Again

Did you approve these when you were informed about them by s'wark officers back in 2014?

Can you say for what reason Chesterfield merited longer yellow lines than other streets like Melbourne and Ashbourne?

Penguin68 · August 13, 2015

rch writes:- A build out at the Ashbourne junction without a raised table would probably cost around ?15K... I'll talk to the Ashbournes and see if they want to put in a proper CGS bid in Sept.

A ped island in the Chesterfield junction would probably cost around ?5K-7K. 15+5=20, which is the same cost as a barrier.

I'd really love to speak to an engineer to work out a better way to control the PERCEIVED traffic concerns long that stretch... build outs are so much more neighbourly than a barrier.

All this would be true and relevant if the actual interest was in issues of speed - but we all know it isn't. It's about creating an exclusive gated community that can lock itself away from the rest of East Dulwich in their own little zone - nothing short of a barrier will do.

James Barber · August 14, 2015

Hi P68,

That seems unfair when residents just don't want so many cars - I'd imagine mostly from outside the area - rat-running down their street.

Hi rch,

A quarter of cars are speeding down this road. Residents are concerned that it will get worse when they have a school at end end as they frame it.

Not sure the odd island would solve speeding or volume. It would also require a loss of much parking to make feasible.

Hi first mate,

I will check my records and come back to you. I certainly don't recall agreeing to more double yellow lines. Do you happen to know which DCC meeting you're referring to as I could give a speedier answer.

first mate · August 15, 2015

James,

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.

"

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.