rch

Totally agree. The area should have been prepped at the end of July with a view towards completing the current Turney section next to the school in August, during holiday break. That would have got the most disruptive bit out of the way. But, because of the number of roads feeding into the junction, it was inevitable that it would take more time than a "normal" junction, especially with the number of changes to the kerb extensions, build outs, etc. I suspect the legal constitutional signoff on the scheme delayed the August advantage... but if the work isn't done now, it won't be done in time for the council elections in May 2018 (or council budget year end in Mar 2018). Expect for a huge amount of work to be done in the Dec hols... There could also be a funding deadline cutoff that might be relevant, but I haven't had the energy to dig into the parameters of the Mayor's Quietway funding criteria.

Lordship Lane is now what's called a Destination Area, which means it has higher footfall and therefore higher priority for council funding improvements. But a big part of the problem is that a lot of the issues are not properly documented, so it keeps falling down the council's internal funding priority list. I asked the Highways Manager at the meeting to explain the "algorithm" which calculates how internal highway repair funds are prioritised and it's so complicated (consisting of the age of the installation and reported potholes, sinking, etc) that I met with him in the hallway after the meeting and gave him photos of the astonishing amount of rainwater ponding that I took in some locations after the last heavy rainstorm. (I would be interested to know where the puddle in your above account was, Mick Mac.) Normally the new pavement installation will consist of the same predetermined slabs across relevant sections of footfall (in the case of Lordship, they will use the same granite slabs that were used in the section starting a North Cross a few years ago for continuity) and then tarmac or another type of material around the trees. What we have been trying to do for years is to get the council to experiment with a material called KBI Flexipave, which looks like tarmac (although it's made with recycled tyres), but is permeable so it won't create puddles around the complicated tree roots. Here's a link to the KBI site:- http://www.kbiuk.co.uk/ I actually got awarded a CGS grant for ?2000 last year to try a Flexipave experiment, but it's only enough funding to cover a small treepit... I've been going around in circles with the council for months to agree a treepit in Lordship Lane that we can try this material with. So, I'm hoping that we can get a Devolved Highways bid approved to address sections of Lordship Lane in sequence until the entire parade is resurfaced in one form or another. I'll try to post some of my photos at some point... p.s. BTW, St Christophers has retarmacked it's private curtilage now, so all the potholes there are gone. When we did some paving schemes in Village ward a few years ago, we used council funding to contribute to half of the costs of repaving the private curtilage outside the shops in matching material for continuity along a parade, but this could get very expensive to do in Lordship. Might try to investigate...

Yes, the problem is with the closing time of the park, especially in the winter. Keeping it open for a Quietway (which was also discussed in the LCN assessment) would mean that the cost of the extra security (and lighting, which would disturb nearby houses) would end up being so expensive that it would be unviable. There was also a discussion at the DCC regarding aggressive cycling in the park (which is a public Open Space) so I'm guessing that this is going to be looked at in due course, as well. edhistory - I'm suspecting that the drawings for the current scheme are accurate... there's a whole series of legal layers that need to be addressed from the proposal stage up the the final implementation stage. Finalising diagrams tends to be quite expensive due to the process of obtaining accurate measurements, so the rough diagrams are used for consultation and the final measurements are done once a scheme is approved and funding is identified. This process usually ensures that public money isn't wasted.

I was pleased to be informed by the Chair (hi, Andy!) that the CGS amount for all the Dulwich wards is now the same as all wards across the borough (the deprivation index calculation has been dropped). So now all we have to do is get residents to agree which highway improvements are top priority. The more residents who stick together, the more likely the relevant bids are to be approved. Therefore, if anyone feels strongly about anything, let's have an open discussion, as many ward councillors are actually reading the forum, even if they don't post.

Well, I made it to the DCC meeting on Saturday afterall and it was actually a really useful meeting. For the first time, council Highway funding is being opened up for public residents' bids as part of the Cleaner Greener Safer fund. The Devolved Highway Fund is set at ?76,190 per ward and is to cover bids for footways and carriageways resurfacing, traffic calming, dropped kerbs, trees, grass verges, and even cycle hangars. This fund is in addition to the CGS fund (capital spending) which is set at ?89,524 per ward and ?30,000 per ward of Neighbourhood Fund (which covers revenue spending). The bidding process is closes on October 23rd, there's more information here:- http://www.2.southwark.gov.uk/info/200256/cleaner_greener_safer

Unfortunately, the only way to get people out of cars in the Dulwich area is to improve public transportation. Bear in mind that the double roundabout scheme was just a preliminary outline proposal which council engineers and cycle groups were already proposing alterations for. For instance, the roundabout size could be reduced so that a separate cycle lane could be created. We had all worked very closely together on the changes to the main Village roundabout, which was done with LCN funding (London Cycle Network), a variation of the newer Quietway funding. So, the levels of cooperation were already in place. The idea at the time was to have some kind of continuity through the Village for cars, cyclists, and pedestrians but this concept has disintegrated now. Councillors at the DCC meeting on Saturday were stressing nothing more should be done until the "holistic" review of traffic flows is completed, which I agree is what needs to happen. Personally, I think the signalled junction scheme that was designed, consulted, and funded back in 2008 was the best way forward (better designed than the current signalled scheme), but it was worth having a detailed look at if the double roundabout scheme could work. But it looks like the current works are going to go through, no matter what. Unfortunately, this new junction scheme is extremely pedestrian unfriendly... which could be a big problem in this high footfall area.

I've attached a jpeg of the proposed Double Roundabout design for discussion. As you can see from the engineer's notes, this was calculated to be the most efficient junction scheme to serve this oddly offset junction of roads for all users. All the cycling groups that I consulted with at the time were in favour of it, and I believe that this layout formed the basis of the recent residents' campaign to have the council consider as an alternative (which could have easily been tweaked to take into account a multitude of parameters) to the scheme that's being implemented. edhistory - from what I could follow, this junction scheme was signed off appropriately... I think the contractors were actually held off for a week or so in order for the cabinet to formally sign off on the paperwork. My guess is that there are some convoluted devolved funding issues that pushed this decision through (we can discuss) and now it will conveniently be completed before the May 2018 council elections. Just to be clear... I'm not trying to be political about this, exactly the opposite. As I keep saying, the Dulwich/East Dulwich residents really need to start sticking together in a non-political manner in order to be able to lobby all the elected political parties in tandem to make decisions that benefit the community as a whole, rather than indulging huge sums of public funding in political point-scoring.

From a pedestrian perspective, this design is awful. There are minutes from a recent council cabinet meeting that stated that all objections and representations were considered and rejected in favour of the now-approved design. We had a far better junction design consulted on and even funded back in 2008, but this was undermined by political machinations... otherwise the better scheme would have been built almost a decade ago for a fraction of the cost. As part of this design process back in 2008, a double roundabout scheme was also submitted by engineers - who recommended it as the most efficient scheme for pedestrians, cyclists, and even cars - but politicians wouldn't even agree to let this design go out to a public consultation. So, now we're stuck with this expensive mess...

Here's a link to a PDF of the approved new junction design:- https://turneyandburbage.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/dulwich-village-junction-changes-2017.pdf Residents are trying to communicate with each other, as I don't think there is anything relevant on the council website, although I'll keep trying to track down formal council info.

Interesting point, Abe, I'll go down and have a look at Crawthew. One of the things I've noticed walking around is that two long-term tarmac pavements in Village ward have recently been upgraded to pavement slabs, but only on one side of the road - Aysgarth Road and Lytcott Grove. I'm guessing that the new Highways protocol is based around all pavements being fit out with the same unified paving slabs across the borough. The reason why Lordship is such a mess is that the imperial paving slabs got replaced quickly with metric slabs, but they were literally just switched over without any backfilling, etc. Later on, Chesterfield/Ashbourne/EDG were also refitted with metric slabs in order to comply with new regulations, but weird slabs were used as a temporary measure. It was intended to go back and refit properly, but this never happened as highway budgets were directed to higher profile areas. I think the protocol is that paving must be replaced every 20 years, but sooner if there is a certain amount of sunken or broken slabs. There becomes a point where patched repairs over time are uneconomical... this is what the algorithm takes into account.

As per our previous discussions, I'm attempting to pick all your collective brains regarding pavement and road repairs so that we can campaign to have residents' repair priorities addressed. There is going to be a useful presentation on the existing Highways Devolved Budget by Highway Engineers at the next Dulwich Community Council (DCC) meeting, so this will be a good time to have an open public discussion. The meeting is taking place this Saturday afternoon, Sept 9th, from 1-3pm at the Dulwich Library (upstairs meeting room). There hasn't been much public notice, so I'm not sure if I can attend, but I/we can follow up with emails to the Highway Officer and DCC Chair (Andy Simmons). I have a funny feeling that the engineers are also following our EDF discussions (hi, guys!). The areas at the top of my current request list is Lordship Lane pavements (particularly the high footfall areas along the main "Destination" shopping parade) and Chesterfield Grove pavements... these will almost certainly have to be done section by section over time for budgetary reasons. I took a couple of photos of Lordship after the most recent heavy rain to show some of the "ponding issues" that actually block pedestrian access, which I'll provide. I'm also aware that Ashbourne Grove and a section of East Dulwich Grove also has the badly laid dysfunctional paving slabs used on Chesterfield (to replace the imperial slabs some time ago... can anyone remember the date?), so I'm going to flag those as well. I'm aware that a section of Chesterfield (I think in front of 1-60 Chesterfield?) is going to be replaced in mid-September (it's now so bad that it's even showing up on the council's "algorithm" assessment system as needing replacement!). Am happy to have detailed forum discussions on these issues (and am looking at tree replacement as well), also let me know if there are other areas that are bad and I'll try to walk around and have a look. The Cleaner Greener Safer fund is also being launched at this meeting, so we can maybe look at topping up the Highways Budget with CGS if a specific section allocation needs a small top-up. Here's a link to this Saturday's DCC agenda in case anyone wants to attend:- http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/g5847/Agenda%20frontsheet%20Saturday%2009-Sep-2017%2013.00%20Dulwich%20Community%20Council.pdf?T=0

Was sad to hear this, my heart goes out to you. These things take longer than expected to get over, so take your time.

You should report this to the Noise Team on 020 7525 5777... here's the council link:- http://www.southwark.gov.uk/noise-and-antisocial-behaviour/how-to-report-a-noise-problem It's also a good idea to call them during the day to discuss the issue and ask advice on what to do if it happens again, as they'll make a note in the file that the night wardens will then be aware of. One of the reasons why we don't have a lot of warden patrols down here in Dulwich is because residents tend not to report relevant matters, which in turn keeps our statistics low, thereby reducing council allocated resources. It's the same with the police... it's always a good idea to call 101, even just to give observations, as all information gets passed down to the local SNT team. If the 101 number is busy, and the situation isn't urgent, then you can still report anything the next morning, when the call centre is quieter.

Here's the link to the council website about noise and ASB:- http://www.southwark.gov.uk/noise-and-antisocial-behaviour/how-to-report-a-noise-problem The direct number for the Noise Team is 020 7525 5777 I would definitely write to them - the more witnesses, the better - to at least make them aware. If nothing else, the noise wardens will inform the problem residents that the council is getting complaints. If it continues, I would call the direct 5777 number around 9-10pm as it could take them over an hour to get down here and witness it themselves. They may ask you to let them into your home so that they can hear the noise levels that you are personally experiencing. In the first instance, the wardens can give warnings, but if there is evidence that it's continuing, they can actually issue a fine.

Hi James... unfortunately devolved funding is a constitutional nightmare, needing to go through multiple layers of dept manager, officer, and cabinet approval protocols. I've also noticed that the DCC area tends to get allocated less devolved funding than the rest of the borough (for instance, I seem to remember that our CGS is a lesser amount and chunks of our CIL gets diverted). But this is why I'm driving everyone mad, trying to stay on top of what's happening and putting down markers as to where we need genuine highway/pavement works to be done... as it may be that the highway algorithm calculations will override resident observations/campaigns on where the worst pavement issues are, so the underspend could get allocated according to algorithm and not human being calculations. All I know for sure at the moment is that one section of Chesterfield is going to be completely backfilled and repaved with upgraded slabs in September (delayed from July)... but Chesterfield should have been done years ago, it fell off the radar. Also, bear in mind that the officer who wrote the restrictive tree planting policies has now left the council and there are now negotiations on reducing the planting restrictions, which I'm going to try to manoeuvre through into East Dulwich and Village with our CGS planting request lists in the autumn, fingers crossed. I'll try to start some discussion threads so everyone here can see what's going on and contribute opinions.

Just to add... If anyone wants a Smart Water kit, you can contact your local SNT and they'll arrange to supply one and register you. The East Dulwich SNT can be contacted by email at:- [email protected] Or you can call 020 8721 2447 and leave a message (they only answer the phone when they're actually on duty).

The police have a Smart Water program which they are systematically rolling out throughout the whole ward (indeed, the whole borough), personally door knocking... so, that's paid for via that route and doesn't need local devolved CGS funding. Bike loops are another viable solution, but there are technical issues that need to be complied with so that they don't block pedestrian access or car door opening. But basically, there are lots of ways forward... it just needs a bit of connected public realm thinking, not ping-ponging.

Am reposting a previous post that got buried on the last page:- Hi James... apparently there's going to be an underspend added to the devolved highways budget amount this year, to use up before the ward boundary changes... I suspect that's why everything is delayed for the moment, as calculations take place. But having an additional CGS top up amount available would help to address various lengths in a sensible manner. For instance, my refused CGS bid for "sections" of Lordship, assessed in tandem with engineers, might have been able to cover the costs of new granite pavements in the section running north from North Cross up to Frogley. The temporary pavement repairs aren't lasting, so it makes sense to work our way up and down Lordship with new paving where possible. The situation with Chesterfield, Ashbourne, and a section of EDG is more complicated... it's now actually being flagged by the council's algorithm calculations, but they are only going to be done in sections as well because of funding issues. There's more, but am trying not to post long posts...

edhistory - FYI, these street audits have been regular events over the years - in fact, it used to be that residents were invited to attend these audits, as they have better knowledge of the local area. The council officer attending will have begun the process of implementing the observations agreed in the audit. In fact, to address Abe's point, I've personally seen that some of the pavement repairs have been performed... but, the problem over the years is that these repairs consist of either cementing a gap or lifting the problematic paving slab and inserting sand underneath, which lasts for maybe a month or so (maybe a year at most). To keep spending council funds for these temporary repairs, over and over, becomes expensive over the years... there becomes a point where it actually becomes more economically viable to backfill and upgrade an entire footpath, section by section... which is what I have been trying to bid for.

James, the logic in this reply is faulty. Firstly, it appears from the url I posted above that the current administration is indeed consulting on locations requested by residents to provide cycle storage with internal council funding. Secondly, you have allocated devolved CGS funding to provide 7 further hangars which, if provided, will benefit a grand total of 42 residents across the ward (in addition to the 36 that you claim already exist?). This is a very small percentage of the 9900 registered voters in this ward. Furthermore, I can't see whether any residents actually submitted CGS bids for cycle hangars, this appears to be a councillor initiative? But, as far as I can tell, the reason WHY you had an underspend to allocate ?30,000 for cycle hangars is partly because councillors refused my CGS application for ?20,000 to re=pave a further section of Lordship Lane, which thousands of local residents would benefit from over the years... But the bottom line is that devolved CGS funds are supposed to be available for local residents to make bids for funding that they feel are important in the local area... so, for councillors to intercept CGS funds to allocate for their own pet projects is creating obstacles for the residents who actually live in the ward and want to make their area better. Just to be clear... I don't object to cycle hangars per se. I just think local residents should consult with their neighbours and submit bids accordingly. This is a democratic process. And, this is exactly what I'm trying to do with the area that I live in - I'm even managing to have public realm discussions with council officers now - but it appears that I'm now being obstructed by local councillors, which I will continue to try to circumvent.

Hi James... apparently there's going to be an underspend added to the devolved highways budget amount this year, to use up before the ward boundary changes... I suspect that's why everything is delayed for the moment, as calculations take place. But having an additional CGS top up amount available would help to address various lengths in a sensible manner. For instance, my refused CGS bid for "sections" of Lordship, assessed in tandem with engineers, might have been able to cover the costs of new granite pavements in the section running north from North Cross up to Frogley. The temporary pavement repairs aren't lasting, so it makes sense to work our way up and down Lordship with new paving where possible. The situation with Chesterfield, Ashbourne, and a section of EDG is more complicated... it's now actually being flagged by the council's algorithm calculations, but they are only going to be done in sections as well because of funding issues. There's more, but am trying not to post long posts...

Yes, exactly, Penguin68. I saw your comments on the other thread about the consultation to reduce traffic, they were spot on. The bottom line is that it's more difficult to put in dedicated Dutch-style cycle lanes in the Dulwich area because the streets are much narrower. This whole area used to be farmland - Calton Avenue was originally created as a horse-drawn plough track to connect fields. Melbourne Grove was created in a very similar manner. I went through this analysis for eight years when I was a councillor, but there's no continuity. But the bottom line is that public transportation needs to improve if the council genuinely wants to get people out of their cars. In the meantime, we need to find a way to sensibly accommodate car usage in tandem with pedestrians, bus users, and cyclists, with pedestrians at the top of the priority list (hence the discussions about pavement improvements and road reconfigurations).

Yes, first mate... I'm trying to circumvent the diversions, but council communication down here is limited and it takes up a lot of time. I'll try to keep the forum updated as much as possible with a view towards us sticking together.

Also, bear in mind that the Dulwich Parameters don't just affect highway and public realm issues... they also affect policing (crime), council services and public engagement. Our local police teams are going to be moved from Camberwell to Peckham, which means it will be more difficult for them to get to their wards, thereby further limiting patrol times and public accessibility. Council housing services are also located in Peckham, which is difficult to get to on public transportation from ED/Dulwich. Plus, the existing community meeting room facilities are limited and difficult for some residents to get to... it would be really useful to have a shared police, council services, and community meeting facility on the Lordship Lane axis, but we keep hitting dead ends on this solution.

Pavement repairs and upgrades are in the public domain and need to be done through the council, who addresses public liability issues in its contract with Conways. The best way for residents to raise funding to address pavement issues is via the devolved CGS funding, which is what I have been trying to do, but councillors aren't approving my bids. Going through Living Streets, and getting them to understand the Dulwich Parameters, is just an extra step which delays the process. I've been trying to circumvent this by liaising directly with the highways officers and am beginning to get some information. A section of Chesterfield is going to be upgraded in September and I've got wind of a highways budget underspend which will hopefully become available soon, which can be used for local issues. The problem is going to be getting councillors to understand what the local issues are...