Jenny1

I was intrigued by one Boris supporter's defence of Mr J on the Today Programme this morning. When the accusation was put to him that Boris told lies, Andrew Gimson (author of 'Boris: The Rise of Boris Johnson') said 'It's democracy. The people want to be lied to'.

Hi Kate h - you were looking for a protest. You may have already seen that one is planned for Tuesday afternoon/evening (1700-2000) in Trafalgar Square. It's called 'London Stays'. I hope this link works to tell you more about it. But if my technology skills have failed then a quick 'google' search should reveal more. https://www.facebook.com/events/1671704409745795/

Now over 850,000 have signed

Burbage Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > there's clearly a mandate for a > more howlingly unhinged approach than either Boris > or Govey could deliver. I'm sure you're right. But I suspect the Conservatives don't have anyone more howlingly unhinged, do they? It's important to confess however that my knowledge of MPs is not exhaustive, so there may well be someone who fits the bill very nicely.

Signed. It's now over half a million. Have shared and urged others to do so.

Yes. Agreed. Thanks for the link Loz. Have signed.

Just interested what people think. They're so different in so many ways aren't they? But perhaps equal in their havoc-wreaking capabilities.

Hi minder That's certainly not a heron. I'm no expert, but it looks like some kind of black duck to me.

That's interesting about the consistency of the arrival dates BrandNewGuy. Good to know that, even in uncertain times, you can count on a swift. I've noticed more goldfinches this year Nigello. But I think it's always amazing to see them. To my eyes they look almost like tropical birds.

Saw my first swifts of the year yesterday. Wheeling and screeching high over East Dulwich. Very welcome summer visitors.

Hi JRK It's fairly simple. A small group of us have got together to make a regular order from the Suma so-op (a wholesaler of organic, vegetarian, vegan and specialist foods). As long as the value of our order reaches at least ?250, delivery is free. We take it in turns to be the drop-off point for the whole order and everyone else troops round to collect their butter, tinned tomatoes, coffee or whatever. Clare-Bear kindly co-ordinates things for us, so do PM her directly if you're interested. Thanks Jenny

Hi Cecilia In answer to your question. Yes - the group is still running and ordering regularly from Suma. Clare co-ordinates for us so do PM her directly if you're interested. Jenny1

Hi chazzle. Have sent you a pm about this.

Signed. I signed because I'm a bus user. I don't own a car. Closures like this play havoc with the buses and thus penalise the most disadvantaged members of society. We should be trying to encourage more people to use public transport - this works against that.

Hi Chazzle. Just to say that I'm really sorry that this has raised it's head again. There are a lot of people here who would support you in doing all that's possible to save these cottages. I was one of those who objected to the planning application on the grounds that the cottages are a unique and important part of the heritage of the local area. Just let us know what's needed as the situation evolves.

I believe that the position of councillor is not highly remunerated - but isn't quite 'voluntary'. My understanding was that there was a salary of ?10,000 a year - unless that's changed in recent years due to cuts.

Hi ed_pete. The aim would, of course, be for the printed report to contain suggestions that were practical and financially viable and would therefore be implemented.

Hi ed_pete To answer your first point - that we already have speeding and volume data for Melbourne Grove and so do not need traffic studies regarding this road and surrounding ones. Personally, as a resident of Melbourne Grove, if asked a few weeks ago if we needed a traffic study into this area I'd have said 'no - I do not perceive problems here'. But because the Melbourne Traffic Action group gathered a lot of support for general traffic calming measures from residents of the road, and because in response to that people living on roads like Ashbourne and Chesterfield have raised their own concerns, then the best approach seems to be a joined-up, coherent look at the whole area suggesting options that are likely to give most benefit to all. In your next post you say that you think that the council was already on course to carry out the kind of study we're asking for - in other words that a barrier on Melbourne Grove was not the only option being considered. I will simply say that after private communication with councillors and Southwark officers I did not feel fully reassured on that point. You ask how a study would go any further than Southwark's existing borough-wide transport plan. Again I would say that I personally would have been quite happy to rely on that. But clearly there are residents on Melbourne Grove and roads that lead into it that have very real concerns about traffic. The objective of the study would be for those concerns to be put before traffic engineers who would then advise on what measures were/were not practicable to alleviate them (within their overall plan ofcourse). You then raise the question as to how we plan to fund such a study if not via CGS funds. You will note that we are critical of the use of such funds for projects that do not meet the 'CGS' remit. We then go on to argue that the study we propose does meet the remit and could therefore be funded accordingly.

Hi James Thank you for your appreciation of our efforts. You asked if we - as a group - would like to suggest Terms of Reference. We don't seek to go beyond the wording of our petition. Our main concern is that a process be undertaken that is led by traffic engineers, consults fully with all affected residents and does not start with any preconceptions. Hence the wording we asked people to sign up to. I'm no expert on how such a thing would be carried out and I'm sure Southwark engineers could advise on the best approach. But it's not hard to imagine an information gathering exercise led by the highways department inviting input from concerned residents. I would like to emphasise something which I said a while ago on this thread. I don't believe there's any great 'real' conflict in this situation. I would imagine we all sympathise fully with the aims of the Melbourne Traffic Action group in wishing to improve traffic conditions on Melbourne Grove. It just felt necessary to go through a process to confirm that this would be done in a way that was led by highway engineers, informed by the facts and which took into account the needs of all affected residents.

Hi ed_pete I had exactly the same thoughts on this subject initially. Why undertake a study now, when clearly within the next few years the situation will change radically? Then it was pointed out to me that it would be good to establish base-line knowledge of the current situation to establish what is 'normal' at the moment and to tease out current problems to which there may well be relatively straightforward solutions. Then in a few years time when things change we'll have a benchmark to act as a comparator to the 'new' situation.

Hi henryb I just wanted to answer your specific point about who is signing up to the 'new' petition. I have now had a chance to analyse the signatures on both the online and paper petitions submitted to Southwark as of 02/09. I can confirm that of the 225 who signed up (counting online and paper signatures) there are 7 people who might fall into the 'more distant supporter' category - and should be discounted - and some of them may indeed be black cab drivers! The rest live in Melbourne Grove or streets leading directly into it - or are in local post codes. 1 person seems to have signed up twice in error. This brings the overall total down to 217.

Southwark's website asks organisers of 'Play Streets' to provide a copy of a 'consultation letter' that should be sent to residents when planning such an event. As a resident of Melbourne Grove I can confirm that - like Bobby P - I've received no such letter. I am not in favour of a permanent blocking of Melbourne Grove. People may well have seen the link to an online petition on change.org, higher up this thread, which invites people to sign up to the following statement - " We the undersigned don't want Melbourne Grove South blocked off by a barrier. We want joined-up thinking to make all our roads safer for everyone. We want the whole community - young and old, drivers, pedestrians and cyclists - to be able to use our streets easily and safely. As residents we want the emergency services to have rapid access to our roads when we need their help. We believe the best way to get safer shared streets for everyone is to call on Southwark Council to produce a comprehensive traffic management study to include all roads in the Grove Vale/Lordship Lane, East Dulwich Grove, Townley Road Triangle. " I'm part of a group of residents on Melbourne and Ashbourne who are co-ordinating this petition. If you'd like to learn more or would simply rather sign a paper petition than an 'online' one please email us. The address is [email protected] Thanks.

Hi All I thought I'd post the full Southwark Council officer's report about Melbourne Grove traffic to help the debate. This is the report that the highways people at Southwark put together in response to concerns being raised about speed and volume of traffic. Councillors were given this report to inform their decision at the last DCC. I can quite see how - having read it - one councillor at least chose not to back a feasibility study. Reading it does reinforce my sense of extreme frustration that others did not take the same view. Melbourne Grove ? Briefing for Ward Councillors The perception of speed and volumes of traffic on Melbourne Grove is causing concern to local residents. Officers have received a petition, and a number of follow up emails, and a deputation is to be made at Dulwich Community Council on Weds 24 June. This note has been prepared for all ward councillors to inform them of the options available. The issue impacts on both East Dulwich and College wards since the ward boundary runs down Melbourne Grove. The area of road that is causing concern runs from East Dulwich Grove to Lordship Lane. There is no controlled parking zone in operation. In recent past the Council has introduced the borough wide 20MPH limit. The road has a series of speed cushions along the full length. The request from the residents was originally to have existing speed cushions removed and replaced by speed humps. An additional/alternative request is for the introduction of some form of filtered permeability (closure) on Melbourne Grove between Tell Grove and Ashbourne Grove. Officers have previously advised that there is no funding currently available to make further changes to Melbourne Grove. This is because the majority of Southwark?s funding for improvements on the public highway comes from Transport for London. There is limited funding each year and therefore a prioritisation of those funds is applied. The highest priority goes to locations with clusters of road traffic accidents or schemes that deliver wider transport objectives such as implementation of cycle facilities. Currently Melbourne Grove does not record as a priority. The Council is committed to reducing road traffic casualties and the introduction of speed reduction measures has been a contributory factor towards the Mayor of London?s mandatory performance targets. It also should be noted that TfL issued this guidance in respect to the use of funding: ?Road humps: given the Mayor?s position on these, boroughs should exhaust all other options before considering the use of vertical deflections such as road humps and speed cushions. If a borough considers such measures to be the only viable option then a further discussion may be needed with TfL on their acceptability.? Officers would not recommend any form of restricted entry or closure on the public highway unless the there were special circumstances. Any such proposal needs detailed consideration given the likely impact on the wider highway network. Current Situation 1) Review of road for speed and volumes - these were surveyed as part of the Council?s recent implementation of borough-wide 20 MPH . Data collected in February 2015 shows an average speed of 20 MPH and approx. 1000 vehicles per day in each direction. A further speed survey was undertaken by met Police in April 2015 and recorded a mean speed of 18.5mph Recorded road traffic accidents ? 2 reported collisions in last 3 years, 2 slight casualties. Officers are committed to undertaking further counts in 2016 as part of our post-implementation 20mph review programme. However, given the data currently available, Melbourne Grove is unlikely to be a high priority for action in the near future. 2) 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. Should you require an update on the progress of the item, please contact the investigating officer [email protected] Future Options 3) 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. 4) Transport for London have just re-launched Community Roadwatch - working in partnership with the Metropolitan Police Service and City of London Police to run Community Roadwatch - a road safety initiative which aims to reduce speeding in residential areas. Community Roadwatch will give local residents the opportunity to work side by side with their local police teams, and use speed detection equipment to identify speeding vehicles in their communities. Warning letters will be issued where appropriate, and the information captured may help to inform the future activity of local police teams. Community Roadwatch is being rolled out across London in phases, with a commitment to reach all London boroughs by December 2015. For further information about the initiative, please contact [email protected] Matthew Hill Public Realm Programme Manager 18 June 2015.

Hi James. No. It's the same document. It's simply that when I asked to see the deputation request and supporting 'petition' I was sent the essential items - the request itself and the attached pages of signatures. The council officers - understandly - did not see a need to send any of the covering photos, maps etc.

I wouldn't quite phrase it like that. Certainly the five signatures can be seen as 100 per cent in support of the long statement - the 'deputation request'. But the council also seems happy to accept the fact that five and a half pages of signatures have been submitted in 'support' of the deputation. But this support is very general. Those signatures can't be seen as being in 'support' of any specific measure because there's no statement at the top of any of the pages of signatures. If you want to make a 'formal petition' you have to make sure that there's a brief, clear statement at the top of all of the pages stating what people are signing up to - for understandable reasons. Nothing 'wrong' has been done here in submitting the deputation request - and the accompanying pages of signatures - to the DCC. The only problem appears to be in the interpretation that some councillors may have placed on what's been presented to them. They may have interpreted it as a 'formal petition' in favour of a specific measure - whereas in fact it was a list of signatures showing general support for traffic calming.