rch

Sadly I don't have the authority to get to the bottom of what happened, but it looks to me from the outside like Southwark Planning dropped the ball along the line. If this is indeed the case and nothing can be done to prevent the suspected new configuration, then I can think of two strategic ways around this... Firstly, if councillors approve my CGS bid in order to allocate enough funding to redesign the junction of Chesterfield and Melbourne (subject to consultation), then a new design could bring the corners together enough to make crossing much safer for pedestrians while implementing traffic calming measures in such a way that larger lorries are prevented from entering Chesterfield from Melbourne by having their turning ratios narrowed enough so that they can't turn the corner. Cutting this route off would make it inevitable that M&S would have to load from Lordship Lane. Secondly, if they are indeed building 10 flats, then they may be obliged to pay some form of Section 106/CIL contribution. It would then be useful if negotiations could encourage the developer to buy out the car wash on Chesterfield with a view towards opening up the entrance to the back of the new development in a way that access and deliveries wouldn't affect local Chesterfield residents. I seem to remember that the land that the car wash is using used to belong to the council, but I don't know whether they are renting it or have sold it off to the car wash people. Either option on its own, or both together, would go a long way towards addressing the issues which are clearly developing.

A quicker method might be to phone the 101 non-emergency police number and report it as a missing package, as it has an identifiable value. In fact, it's possible that the person who found the package might have actually reported it to 101 so that it could be logged in case the owner also logged it... at worst, the police may be able to help to triangulate the phone number configuration with a view to recovering the "lost" item. It's sad that because we don't have police stations down here in the Dulwich area anymore, that we have to use the East Dulwich Forum as a Cyber Neighbourhood Watch conduit...

Secondly... I put in a CGS bid for build outs for the Ashbourne and Chesterfield junctions, as discussed on the door step during our Anti-Barrier petition campaign. My understanding from ongoing discussions with highway engineers is that the biggest technical problem is the visibility issues at both junctions... and build outs will help to keep the parking back from the corners as well as bringing the corners closer together which would benefit pedestrians plus also act as a speed calming measure. The only problem is that the build outs would also restrict spaces to pull over to let other cars through, so this would need engineer advice on how best to proceed... But I thought that I would at least get the bid in now so that funding could be in place depending on what engineers recommended. The cheapest junction to reconfigure would be the Ashbourne junction (which is also the most problematic) but bringing the corners of Chesterfield closer together would not only help pedestrian visibility and crossing, but it would also close off Chesterfield to the M&S lorries it the redesign was configured cleverly. I have no idea what will happen because communication is so bad, but I thought I'd put in the bid anyway... I'm guessing it will be rejected, but at least I tried. According to the engineers, the most cost-effective way to address the issue is to ram extended double yellow lines in around all the junctions... which I actually think would be awful, hence my build out CGS bid so that there is an alternative on the table.

Update from my end... Firstly, I just wanted to flag that Melbourne had a significant amount of displacement traffic again when the 42" water main burst on Townley Road at the beginning of the month. Some of the members of the Traffic Action Group were pointing the volume out to me as I walked by, but I couldn't get them to understand what the problem was. So, I thought I would mention it here because I can see that the speed and volume measurement cables are out all over the area but I don't know when the recording exercise began. But, if everyone suddenly claims that the new measurements are significantly higher, I'll be happy to point out WHY!

Hi Kit... have been to buried to type, but I'm really pleased that you have created this petition and I will try to help when I get a bit more free time. Can you do me two favours? 1. Can you post the direct url for the petition... it looks like the one you posted is diverted via Facebook somehow and it would be better to circulate a shorter url. 2. Can you give me the nearest house number to the treepit on Dunstans road, so that I can swing by and have a look? I'm working out a cunning plan, more soon when I can type!

FYI, I think Chris disappeared in the latest "reorganisation". He originally worked for Mouchel, but I think he stayed self-employed over the various council reconfigurations. Depending on budgetary constraints, outsourcing was considered to be a cost-effective way of keeping excellent staff on board but not having to pay pension contributions, etc. I see where you're going with this, John, but bear in mind that all engineers take instructions from the incumbent administration.

Hi, somehannahb... can you PM me with your email address so that I can add you to the cc list? Someone else has PMd me as well, so I think we're up to 8-10 people now, which is enough to try to set up a monitoring session... It would also be good to have a discussion about where the best place is to monitor from (i.e., the most speeding) and also what time of the day and which day of the week would be best. If anyone else wants to join in, then also PM me your email address. Sheff I'm hoping that you'll volunteer to coordinate all the residents! I won't post the date and the time of any agreed session, as we don't want to tip off any potential speeders...!

Enforcing 20mph will be nearly impossible because of the way the legislation is set up and because police resources are being decimated. We have one local ward PC based in Camberwell and she walks the ward once a day. So, even if she saw someone speeding fast enough to take action, she wouldn't be able to catch up with them. Most traffic units are based in areas where there are measured problems and our stats down here are too low to make enforcement viable. The most accepted way to "control" speed issues is by creating obstacles in the road, but then it gets to the point where these measures don't really address the problem and then new problems are created, such as displacement or drivers being distracted and spending more time watching their speedometers instead of the road in front of them. The problem from my perspective is political, with people making decisions about things they simply aren't trained to understand. Ironically, I think the police totally get it, but they are fighting politicians on other fronts. On a positive note, someone said something at a recent police meeting I attended, which I think is spot-on... They said that when the speed limits are set at 30mph, most cars travel at 35mph... but where the 20mph limits are set, most drivers drive at around 25mph. In other words, the general mindset has changed, which is pretty much the best I think that we will achieve.

Definitely daft! Can you ask why the one is allowed on the Southwark side of Herne Hill, in case we can use that one as a precedent? My understanding was that Southwark doesn't want to pay for the electricity, but maybe they'll allow it if we can get TfL to pay and install it?

treehugger, this is amazing information... I vaguely seem to remember that the technology changed (I think we lost the one on EDG around the same time), but if the units are still there then we may be able to put pressure on TfL to renew them (as it's a bus route) and agree to pay the electricity, which would be a good result in the short term. I'll go have a look... Jaaaaaaaaaames! Can you look into this from your end? The council will probably say that the units are defunct, etc, but if the power connections technically still exist, then that's half the battle. This might also be a good CGS bid in tandem with TfL negotiations...

Yay Pugwash, I totally agree with the Fred Francis Centre suggestion! It would actually make a great location for a small police touchdown base and a mini-housing office with shared community meeting facilities... which is exactly what we need. But, because this is a council owned property, it will most likely be sold off to a developer and the profit diverted to a political-pointscoring project in the middle or the north of the borough.

ruffers, it's still worth trying to flag community concerns as sometimes it can lead to other solutions which aren't immediately obvious. Reading the comments here about buses is interesting, as I went through exactly the same bus issues on Half Moon Lane and East Dulwich Grove when I was a Village cllr. So, it might be useful for James to phone TfL and flag the observed bus speeding issues and see if TfL will at least flag the concerns to the drivers in the first instance. It's possible that the buses have speed monitoring devices fitted, but they would probably be set to the default 30mph limit and not the 20mph limit, so an internal device won't show speeding. But if TfL are aware of the issues then they may be convinced to pay for something like a 20mph smiley face monitor, as I think they did on Herne Hill because of the same reported concerns. Bear in mind that we actually managed to get funding for highway alterations to address concerns on East Dulwich Grove, but this is a double-edged sword as it lead to the raised table around the corner of EDG and Thorncombe where residents are now complaining that the sound and vibrations of the larger vehicles hitting the table are now keeping them awake at night without actually calming the speeds. In the meantime, if you get a measurement over 35mph on a bus, try to get the bus asset number which should be on the back along with the time and date, so this can be used as proof to TfL, who will be able to check the logs to verify that the alleged bus was indeed travelling along Barry Road at the time.

I heard about the CGS cancellation from the chair of the Dulwich Society, who met with two councillors... it could be confusion about the double bid, but the basic reason given for the cancellation was that it was thought that the police wouldn't use the annexe and that it was a poor use of funds considering budget cuts. So even if the funding is still intact, it doesn't sound like the premises will be available for a community safety contact point, which means that we'll have to find somewhere else anyway. In any case, the communication from the council has been so bad that it's questionable whether this will work out or not, even if the funding was still available. Everyone is so fed up that we're beginning to feel that we simply need to do everything ourselves now... Can you try to find out what's going on and let us know?

I totally agree that we need to organise a police base in the area, this is increasingly becoming a priority, especially with more budget cuts looming. Unfortunately, the council have cancelled the CGS funding that was allocated to convert the annexe of the Dulwich Library into a "community safety" touchdown base, so we are now at the point where the residents feel that we need to take the bull by the horns and do this ourselves. At the moment I'm speaking to shopkeepers along both the Lordship Lane and East Dulwich Grove axis to see if there are any possibilities and then we'll need to investigate how to raise funding. aerie, the Grove Tavern would be brilliant, but it's too expensive and not in the best location to serve East Dulwich and Village wards, which are the ones that are most affected. It needs to have good transport links, as well. But keep brainstorming... any suggestions are welcome.

It basically means that our accident rates and average traffic speeds are lower than in the problem hotspot areas, so we won't get assigned as many personnel as in the higher priority areas. Speeding is assessed according to complicated formulas set up by legislation and what is known as the ACPO guidelines and that determines what kind of action can be taken. A summons can't be served unless a vehicle is going 35mph in a 20mph limit. But the local teams are very supportive and will make the effort to come out and explain the procedure to residents and show them how it works if there is a high amount of interest.

wulf, I think the key to any junction design in Dulwich/East Dulwich is to equally balance pedestrian/cycling/car manoeuvres without restricting bus movements. I think it's progress that we agree on Design 2 from our different perspectives, would be interesting to see what other people think. It sounds like the Sustrans session on Oct 3rd is going to concentrate on tweaking THEIR preferred option, so maybe it would be useful to attend this? We probably need a new thread... BTW, I only posted the double roundabout design to wind everyone up, as I have an evil sense of humour (insert smiley face). If I get around to it, I'll post the design that went out to consultation and got majority support back in 2008, although it doesn't really matter anymore.

Hi guys... I've got a couple PMs now, will email you all so that we're all on the same page... will include intexas as well. sheff, it's useful that you've spoken to Lynsey, hopefully she can help us. Suggestions that any sessions should be put off until the spring because of the shorter days were discussed at our meeting, but it might be good to try to slip something in sooner. It's also useful that you've measured a bus at 36mph, as I suspect that it will be TfL who will need to fund any improvements. The biggest problem seems to be awareness that it's a 20mph zone (despite the markings on the road), so a smiley face illuminated speed display like the one on Herne Hill, paid for by TfL, might be a good first step.

Hi James, ironically, this double roundabout scheme was also preferred by the campaigner who has been active in the pro-Quietways campaign, we often talked about working together to get it looked at again, but there was too much political opposition to it. It was also said to be the best logistical option by highways engineers... In any case, things have moved on, so I'm going to write to Sustrans to see if they can tweak the staggered pedestrian islands in their selection of options... I think Design 2 is probably the least worst of the lot, although I think all four of them are pretty bad for pedestrians.

One way forward might be for you guys to email the Planning Enforcement team directly at:- [email protected] ...and ask for an update, you might be able to get an idea of a tentative date. The officer assigned to this case is really good, she used to be the allocated officer for Dulwich years ago, so she's familiar with local concerns. If you get any updates, can you post it on here so that we can all know what's happening?

I'm still trying to organise speed monitoring sessions, but I keep hitting dead ends in coordinating residents with police, especially now that police numbers in Dulwich are so low that it's inevitably restricting priorities (this is another discussion). In a meeting with the local police team last week, they said that if interested residents could organise a group of six people with a selection of available dates, then we could get a traffic team booked to come for a session. The main problem appears to be that Dulwich is low priority for speed monitoring because our speed stats are so low... unfortunately the overblown claims of speeding on Melbourne Grove have backfired, as none of the sessions showed extreme speeding. Also, a trial speed session was done on Barry Rd without residents in August and none of the cars were observed going fast enough to issue a summons. Bear in mind that the official speeding guidelines require a vehicle to be going 35mph in a 20mph zone in order to be considered extreme enough for a summons. But I'm happy to try to help to organise something, just be aware that we need to have a minimum of 6 residents prepared to commit to attending. PM me with your email address if you want to follow this up...

Calton Avenue used to have the priority - the main reason behind the current narrowing build outs (which residents campaigned for) was precisely to divert the traffic priority away from Calton while also narrowing the entrance to Court Lane, making it easier for pedestrians and schoolchildren to navigate. Where this narrowing tactic went wrong is that it was meant to be part of a whole junction redesign which got politically obstructed because the new junction design (which had majority vote in the consultation) narrowed the three lanes going into Dulwich Village into two lanes, which ironically all these newly proposed options also do. So, only implementing half of the design had a knock-on effect on the traffic build up, which now looks like it's all being removed. We could have a whole discussion about this if you guys want, let me know, or maybe start a new thread... I doubt I'd be allowed to speak out at a public meeting as I know too much background. In the meantime, as a special treat for bawdy-nan, I'm attaching the drawing for the infamous double-roundabout proposal, which was politically undermined before it even could go to consultation...

They are all quite shockingly bad. Every single one of the options makes the provision for pedestrians worse in an area where there is extremely high pedestrian footfall. You'd think they would have learned their lesson with staggered pedestrian crossings at the old Townley junction and the relatively new pedestrian island at the junction of Half Moon Lane and Herne Hill. Pedestrians will always circumvent the longer crossing distance caused by the staggering by running out in front of cars, which is really unsafe. Why does improving cycling have to inconvenience pedestrians? They've even just done it again up at the Calton buildout at the Townley junction.

Unfortunately I missed last Saturday's session... is there any way that someone could post scans of the options?? We went through this exact exercise back in 2008 when we consulted on a join-up scheme of five junctions in the area in order to get the traffic to flow more eloquently while also incorporating improvements for pedestrian and cyclists, so I'm wondering if all this is going around in the same circle or if it's being directed in a way that will hamstring the overall situation even more?

Hi Zeb, the meeting transpired to be about fairly Village ward-specific issues such as the Townley junction and the proposed Quietways, which will have a knock-on effect to East Dulwich, but the chair briefly mentioned that the Melbourne closure feasibility study appears to have been set aside for now. But comparing notes was extremely interesting in that residents are pretty much agreeing that what the proposals that we are all fighting have in common is that they seem to be proposed by people who don't really understand how the Dulwich parameters differ from the rest of the borough and that there seems to be a glitch in communications and consultations down here that exacerbate the problems. So, one of the ideas that we're kicking around is whether the Dulwich Society might want to host and chair more community meetings in the local area so that residents have a better opportunity to discuss various matters with council officers BEFORE large sums of money is spent designing or implementing measures that we then have to spend inordinate amounts of time objecting to, leading to more funding being spent on re-re-re-designs. I think that this is definitely something that should be explored...

Thanks, intexas. And thanks for your support in general, much appreciated. Getting back to traffic issues... FYI, the Dulwich Society is having an open public traffic meeting this afternoon at 2pm at Saint Barnabas Church on Calton Avenue. The discussion will be mostly Village ward oriented (the Townley Road junction issues and Quietways), but the same underlying dynamic is developing in East Dulwich.