rch

Hang on, one more thought... I think EDG is actually a TfL controlled road, not council controlled? It might be worth escalating a complaint to TfL, as they would have had to approve the works, to see if they can oblige the council to act. But funding will be the problem, so it's still best to get the CGS bid in place in order to circumvent that excuse. The bidding process opens on Sept 7th.

First mate and Abe, this is one of the things that I've been thinking about as well, in tandem with The Melbourne Grove Liberation Committee (sorry, I couldn't resist!), as my house is strategically positioned in a way that makes me more aware of traffic flow on Melbourne. I reckon that the residences on Melbourne, south of the proposed barrier, along with landlocked Playfield, Lytcott, and part of Colwell will be most affected... this could represent up to around 200 residences with an unknown number of vehicles which will end up being diverted through to a new route. The most likely exit rat run out to Lordship will be Chesterfield, with Ashbourne as a secondary exit (the entry to Chesterfield is more open and easier to navigate than the Ashbourne junction) as that's the route that most vehicles at this end currently take to Lordship anyway. The junction of Melbourne with Lordship has a lot of issues which drivers tend to avoid, so I can see even residents at my end heading out via Chesterfield, especially when the new school at the police station site is in operation (which is another issue that needs to be considered). This exercise would almost certainly form part of the feasibility study, but it's not rocket science to see where it's heading...

Andrew, I totally agree with you about the Democracy Commission exercise, this is something we should pick up on a new thread as these issues won't go away.

Hmm, it sounds like residents need to learn about traffic calming tactics and then unite to have proposed schemes tweaked accordingly, before they're even built, which is exactly what we're trying to do on Melbourne Grove. One thing you might consider is liaising with a sympathetic councillor and submitting a Cleaner Greener Safer bid for a pedestrian island to be implemented in the middle of that ramp, as was originally intended. You may be told that this is now contrary to highway policies, but I think it might be worth fighting with councillor support and devolved funding as it may be the only way to slow the HGVs down. On a positive note, I noticed the other day that that ASBO drain cover at the edge of the ramp that I'd photographed, had been re-cemented and had cones around it, so hopefully the repair will at least address that particular aspect of the noise? Let me know, as I'm a bit of a geek.

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.

If residents up there want to put double yellows at the Tell junction, that's fine with me, but I would campaign against them down here at the southern end as we really don't have the problem. Yes, James, we allocated underspends, but in my day we could only allocate underspends to officer assessed items that had initially been rejected from the original bids... anything "new" that came up had to have cabinet member approval and another assessment. It looks like the constitution rules have changed. I don't mind you expressing an opinion, but I don't understand why the stats changed your mind as they are pretty much the same as they were six years ago when the second consultation went against any changes and even the recent officers briefing advises against both a barrier and full width humps.

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.

Yes, but what worries me is that the highway officers report that was given to councillors for that same meeting recommends NEW double yellow lines for ALL junctions on Melbourne Grove. This appears to tie in with the deputation's reference to yellow lines, although it's hard to tell because there's been no public discussion of any of this and it's taking weeks to dig out documentation. The report states:- "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, following on from the above comments, here's the catch on cllrs voting on allocating CGS underspend for a feasibility study for a barrier, better signage, and double yellow lines (as per the deputation request)... The officers report states at the beginning why full width humps or a barrier would almost certainly not be implemented with council funding (which we'll go into later) but suggests that devolved CGS funding could be investigated (even though existing legislation would probably override any feasibility study recommendations). This is the exact wording:- "Given the issue is not likely to be a corporate priority for some time, one funding option that could be investigated is using Cleaner Greener Safer funding. Applications for next year will considered in the autumn. Some approximate costs to consider: Feasibility study to investigate road closure - ?5-10k Introduction of road closure - ?20-30k Replacement of one set of cushions with full width sinusoidal hump - ?3-5k 
 Officers? view is that replacement of sets of cushions with new full width humps is not likely to have a significant impact on vehicle speeds." But the catch here is that the CGS process, referred to above as being considered in the autumn, consists of an open bidding process followed by an officer assessment of whether the bid is a viable use of public finding. In the normal process, a lot of the bids are eliminated from the list even before it goes to the voting stage. But, but by approving the funding for this feasibility study out of CGS underspend, cllrs have circumvented the bidding process and the officer assessment. I think this is what concerns most residents... that up to ?10K of public funding can be spent on a feasibility study that officers have already briefed is probably not feasible, based on a set of signatures that doesn't constitutionally qualify as a petition. If a barrier is actually voted to go through after the feasibility study, then more funding will need to be allocated for a wide-range public consultation across all the affected streets (could be another ?5-10K), plus another ?20-?30K to fund the implementation of the barrier itself. Officers' recommendations state that, in the interim, the double yellows on all the junctions should proceed with internal council funds in December.

These are all very good points. Regarding the forum, it's good that James participates, but it's not a usual way for elected members to communicate, especially as members wouldn't want to express personal opinions on matters that they will need to vote on. When I used to post here as a cllr, I had to be very careful what I wrote unless I intended to abstain. The legislation on publicly expressing opinions has loosened a bit now, though. However, I'm finding that this forum is very useful for residents to communicate with other residents as there is really no other structure for us to access information and share and analyse it, whereas cllrs and council officers have an inherent internal structure which I'm finding is very difficult for residents to access. We've got the okay from the ED resident, who tracked down the officers Melbourne Grove briefing, to quote from sections of the report as long as we don't publish the whole document, so we'll cite specific relevant sections as we go along.

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.

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.

Totally agree, again, rah. All a barrier will do is divert traffic to create new rat runs. Residents in landlocked Lytcott and Playfield will probably cut through Ashbourne and Chesterfield. In the meantime, I've gone back and double checked the double yellows on Tell and they are listed for the junction of Tell and EDG, NOT Tell and Melbourne, so apologies... scrolling through the 471 page PDF document looking for listings at different ends of the alphabet is a pain. FYI, from another thread it looks like the Ashbourne and Chesterfield double yellows were approved in the run-up to the May 2014 elections, which is how they got through under the radar.

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...

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...

Woodwarde, sorry we're ping-ponging threads... my guess is that the TMO proposal is a preliminary part of the traffic order process, as the cllrs briefing states that the works won't be done until Dec. Also, all of this information is currently available on the Southwark website, although I don't know if it has been advertised in the Southwark News yet. Am guessing the ad will come in Sept. In context of the existing double yellows at Ashbourne and Chesterfield, I think the Tell doubles are probably sensible. When I had a look this morning, there was a car parked right at the kerb in breach of the Highway Code, which would have made it difficult for a resident in a car to turn left into Tell, so the proposal is indeed probably justified there.

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.

I totally agree, rah. One of the solutions that the officers briefing mentions is the Community Roadwatch program of volunteers working with the police on local speed monitoring sessions, which is something that I have actively been trying to propose in the area. I mentioned this to the deputation at the DCC meeting, but the deputation members were so negative about it that the local police have put any further Melbourne Grove sessions on hold. Ironically, I was talking to a barrier supporter this morning while out surveying the double yellows and they commented how fast a car was speeding as it passed us by... but because I've had the training, I could tell that it was almost definitely going under 20mph. Maybe what we really need is one of those smiley-face neon signs that post the speed of passing cars...

FYI, I've studied the TMO document and done a walkabout and posted my observations on the Melbourne Grove thread... the cited Ashbourne and Chesterfield double yellows are already there, so I doubt they can be removed... the only new double yellows are proposed for Tell Grove in line with the Ashbourne and Chesterfield yellows... the rest of Melbourne is happily to remain untouched.

I haven't had a chance to study the TMO document to see if the proposals for the Lordship shopping parade are on there, this exercise is actually involves quite a bit of work, but I'll try to have another go when I have more time. Also, the Melbourne Grove - Briefing for Ward Councillors would have definitely been given out to all the cllrs before the June 24 DCC meeting... Cllr Kirby referred to it in public at the meeting, which is how I knew it existed, and I don't think she would have gotten an isolated copy. Residents are currently requesting permission to publish this briefing here so that we can discuss all the points openly.

Okay, I've now had a chance to look at all 471 pages of the TMO document, plus I've gone out and done a walkabout. Firstly, the double yellows in the TMO list for the south side of the Chesterfield junction w/Melbourne, plus both sides of the Ashbourne junct w/Melbourne, are already there... it looks like they were implemented a while ago without anyone realising, there would have been a traffic order that slipped under the radar. I can't tell if the existing lines are to be extended, but it doesn't look like it. The TMO document doesn't look like it's proposing to line the curved northern side of the Chesterfield junct, probably because that's not a proper corner and is offset. The only new double yellows proposed for Melbourne are at the Tell Grove junction with Melbourne, which actually makes sense in line with the Ashbourne and Chesterfield lines, as the road in that whole section is narrower and therefore cars passing is more difficult. The Tell Grove yellows will probably lose one car parking space, maybe two in a pinch. Happily, the Lytcott, Blackwater, and Colwell junctions with Melbourne appear to have no plans for double yellows (only the junctions with Lordship are cited), probably because the stats are so low and we don't complain much down here... To be fair, I don't think James can do much about this... as some of the double yellows are already there and must have been legally approved, setting a precedent. Looking at the context of the entire 471 page document, this looks to me like the Tooley Street Dictatorship going mad with highway regulations. I remember having these discussions as a cllr years ago and we always took the view that double yellows constituted street clutter and if it ain't broke don't fix it... but that if residents complained, then address their specific complaints. So this looks like what has happened, with highway engineers now consolidating all the bits and pieces and filling in the gaps (including lots of roads in Dulwich Village as well as East Dulwich) into one Master Plan. I'm guessing that the only reason that this was mentioned in the Melbourne Grove Councillors Briefing is because it was going to be done anyway and it makes it look like the council is responding positively to residents' "concerns".

It's all just beginning to sink in, first mate. Our Melbourne bit is on page 273 of a 471 page document! It looks like the junctions of Ashbourne and Chesterfield with Melbourne are definitely going to be yellow-lined. Ashbourne gets 5 metre lines and southern end of the Chesterfield junct gets 7.8 metres. Will walk it tomorrow. This was hinted at in the officer's briefing for cllrs on the "perceived" speeding and volume problems on Melbourne for the June 24th DCC meeting, so cllrs would have been notified of what was coming... but connecting all the dots is difficult because the information is so buried. I guess the lesson is... be careful what you campaign for, because you just might get it, albeit not in the form that you expect.

OMG, first mate and Woodward! It does indeed look like some of the double yellows have made it into this notice! They've folded the Ashbourne and Chesterfield junctions along with some of Melbourne North into some of the markings around the new junctions at Melbourne and EDG. They're not doing the full 10 metres, though, just five metres, but that's still quite a lot. It doesn't look like they've come down as far as Blackwater and Colwell, though... Cripes, will have to print this out and walk through it tomorrow, to be sure where north and south are. Don't worry about overlapping threads, it looks like everything else is overlapping, so this is really useful.

On the third hand, everyone is entitled to whatever opinion they want to have... the overriding detail here is that, no matter what people THINK, the bottom line is that the objective reality defined by statistics and legislation is what will prevail, no matter how angry anyone gets.

I agree with mockingbird and Jenny1 about the damage to the community that this is causing. The officer's report mentioned above makes exactly all the points that I've been making all along, which have upset some of my neighbours so much that they now won't speak to me. I'm assuming that this is a confidential internal document, but if someone had sat down and gone through all of this with campaigners then it would save a lot of conflict as well as ?10,000 (plus another ?20-30K to actually implement a road closure). What's even more concerning is that the officers have stated in the report that, to address the "perceived" issues of the residents, they now intend to introduce double yellow lines at ALL the junctions on Melbourne Grove as per the Highway Code Waiting and Parking policy 242. This means that cars will not be able to stop or park "opposite or within 10 metres (32 feet) of a junction, except in an authorised parking space". If this goes ahead it would mean that Melbourne Grove South could lose up to FIVE parking spaces on either side of EVERY junction, plus a further amount of spaces across from the junction. Plus, it would set a precedent to implement these measures on ALL the roads in East Dulwich. Creating these gaps would easily address the issues of the difficulty of cars passing in the narrow section of Melbourne between Ashbourne and Chesterfield, but the knock-on effect of losing that amount of parking (between 30-50 spaces) in Melbourne will be intense. The double yellow line solution was to be investigated during June and July with a view towards implementing it in December 2015, subject to consultation. On one hand, I can't see this proposed solution actually passing a consultation... but, on the other hand, there is no reason why the council can't enforce the Highway Code. Although loss of parking doesn't affect me, because I don't drive, I have fought long and hard over the years to retain parking spaces and freedom of movement in my neighbourhood, to say nothing of avoiding the ugly urban yellow line curse. It will be interesting to see what happens...