first mate

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 longer double yellows on Chestefield? " 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 james.barber@southwark.gov.uk 07900 227366 Liberal Democrat Councillor for East Dulwich Ward Skype cllrjamesbarber [www.jamesbarber.org.uk] [twitter.com]

I thought it was worth posting the bulk of the newspaper article "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. ?While there may be some anticipated issues including knock-on effects for neighbouring roads, it is definitely worth investigating. If I lived on Melbourne Grove, I would want it closed.? A resident who lives on nearby Tell Grove, who preferred not be named, said: ?With two new schools coming I think it is worth looking into. My kids and I cycle down Melbourne Grove and cars absolutely race by. It?s not so bad on major roads where cars and cyclists expect each other, but on smaller roads it?s a nightmare and a real danger. ?However, I don?t know if I?m for or against the proposal. If it merely displaced traffic onto other roads then it clearly wouldn?t be the best idea. However, it is certainly something that should be studied.?

rahrahrah and ed_pete, yes okay perhaps I am being excessive but it is just so frustrating to discover that there really does not seem to be an overview of traffic and parking management for the area. I find it hard to believe that elected officials have not given this consideration, especially considering the fairly significant developments that are imminent. My interest is also in the community, I am not affiliated to any political organisation.

rch, no it was me and I too dislike politics..I just think the way this and similar issues are being handled stinks.

Penguin68, Thank you for articulating rather better than I the reality of councillor tactics. Do they really think most of us cannot see through them? It is the paternalistic zealotry that really gets my goat and I agree, how ironic that it's the socialists and libdems creating and driving division to ensure their aim of CPZ wins through.

Some time ago, when these works were first challenged Cllr Barber said the works were being done for safety reasons. many pointed out that the number of accidents on this road was exceeded by some way by other roads in ED. Cllr Barber then shifted his position and stated the following "The NXR/LL has a number of pedestrian movements but primarily these works are to make this junction more pleasant and a better experience." So there you go an expensive and deeply obstructive measure for a somewhat wishy washy reason. Cllr Braber has more recently stated that he is sure it will all be worth it in the end. Okay.

This is why I cannot understand why some Councillors are in support of the barrier. They really need to say that it is part of a broader vision to seriously reduce car ownership; a deliberately oblique means to place as much pressure on ED car owners as possible. Consider what Chesterfield already contends with- the car wash and major impending development of M&S (with stepped up daily lorry deliveries). Councillors have already admitted that they expect M&S to increase parking pressure on surrounding streets, and we must not forget the extra 8-10 flats also to be built on that site. Then Harris and Charter will just be down the road.Are all those children coming in on bikes and buses? I simply cannot believe that Councillors are unaare of these factors or that this is not a deliberate tactic on their part to force through CPZ. Come on guys, if you are so convinced you are right then at least be honest with the local electorate about what you are up to.

One of the things I am interested to know is how blocking off Melbourne would impact on traffic flow on Ldship and other main access roads, given that traffic is likely to increase once the new Harris, the new Charter and M&S are all up and running. Have any projections been done given these considerations? To me it sounds like Ldship Lane could become a place of bumper to bumper traffic misery in the not too distant future; I don't see everyone suddenly jumping onto bicycles, especially in the dark winter months.

Can James Barber please confirm that Nx rd is not to be closed off at the Ldship end? To paraphrase Councillor Barber, the stated aim of these works is to make that area a nicer experience for pedestrians. James has also stated that the new configuration will not in any way affect traffic flow.

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?

Yes, reckon that concrete must have dried by now?

Could James ( as the councillor that is a regualr voice on the forum) please comment on rch's points?

rch, my concern is that 'cockup' is a very convenient fig leaf that allows get outs all round. We experienced it with the M&S fiasco when it was claimed, more or less, that officers and councillors had not fully understood the process. So the apparent 'double bind' officrs and councillors may have got themselves into on this occasion leaves me thinking how convenient.

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?

ED_Moots, Quite right and zealots have a way of justifying all kinds of stinky routes and methods if they think it will help achieve their vision.

James, think you should amend your first statement to "some Melbourne Grove residents" and it is not at all clear that "some" in any way represents the majority view on that road. We also know, from back in the day of the old CPZ debate, that highlighting the needs of one street is not a great way to go, since restrictive changes to one tend to impact those around it, usually for the worse. We need an overview of the whole of ED and surrounding areas to try to figure out the best way forward.

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?

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, Thanks again for your input. Think the problem with the process is that it does not feel transparent and so there is a sense that stuff is being slid through; if councillors are not made aware in good time of various changes then what hope the rest of us? Anyhow, agree some proper speed monitoring might help get objective data though even that is of limited use unless compared with many other streets in the area whrre residents could make similar claims. It does not seem to me that barriers will do more than push the problem elsewhere and that is why I am somewhat cynical about any apparent political support for this proposal.I think unless enough people are caught speeding and hit in their purses, there is little that will stop them doing it again. It is human nature. Blocking off roads as a solution is simply barmy.

Post removed because misunderstood above. W, James seems not to have been aware of these plans so hoping he will now get to grips with this and report back, as he says he will, on implications and how to fight it most effectively if it does seem that large slices of parking are to go.

Hi James, Thanks for that and you are welcome. Unless I have missed them elsewhere on the forum, could you let us know what your comments are and whether you are in favour/ supporting these proposals, that is new yellow lines as indicated. It would be good to know what your colleagues think, though understand that you cannot make them tell us.

Hi James, hope you had a good break. Please see the threads on Melbourne Grove and Townley, where there appear to be some new developments. A number of us would be grateful if you, Rosie and Charlie could explain the ramifications and to what extent any of you knew about the proposals?

Nonetheless, I would hope that our locally elected rep would at least come on and give his take on this most recent revelation and explain how he sees this impacting the streets in question, not to mention the wider area. We have to keep thinking of the whole, the sum effects of all these changes, not just street by street.

I really don't think the aim is to reduce speed. The real issue is reducing parking and then cars, this is a more oblique way of doing it. Our local Councillor campaigned long and hard for CPZ so I cannot see that he would object to or stand in the way of anything that achieves a similar result. After all, if parking is sufficiently reduced there will be some that clamour for CPZ. Parking is being reduced by one method or another all over ED and Dulwich, this suits the purposes of the Southwark administration and, I fear, our own Councillor, though I very much hope he comes on here to say I am wrong.

Yes, it looks sneaky. Lots of TMOS with lots of new yellow lines reducing lots of parking spaces, all misleadingly lumped under the title of "consolidation", while we've all been been kept busy focussing on the barrier issue. Well done Woodwarde for spotting this one and rch please do reveal the full extent of the "agenda" when you have had a chance to look. Can I also ask James to comment on the above?