Jenny1

Well I think it's important - when referring to it - to make it clear that it's not a 'formal petition', but rather a list of signatures submitted in support of a deputation request. It might sound like a 'nit picking' distinction - but actually it makes all the difference in the world.

Hi BNG You may have seen my posts on the Melbourne Grove thread about the so-called 'petition'. I was sent a copy by Southwark Council officers. I do not think it right to post it publicly as it contains people's private details. The document is in fact a 'deputation request' - almost a full side of A4 stating concerns about the speed and volume of traffic on Melbourne Grove and asking for a barrier, more double yellow lines, and any other traffic calming measures that the council can come up with. This page is signed by five people. Attached to this document are a further five and half pages of signatures. There is no statement at the top of any of these pages indicating what measure the signatories are supporting. This means that these pages of signatures do not constitute a 'petition' in favour of a defined measure. The rules on petitions are clear. So these signatures can only be viewed as adding weight to a general request for traffic calming measures. They do not constitute support for a barrier. They may have been gathered at any time during an ongoing campaign which began with a request for full speed bumps. I have also seen the officers' report which Southwark Highways Department prepared in response to concerns about traffic on Melbourne Grove. This report was made available to Councillors at the last DCC meeting. You'll see rch quoting from it in recent posts here and on the Melbourne Grove thread. The report makes it clear that the Highways Department do not think the current data on speed and volume of traffic on Melbourne Grove make it a priority. They do not express support for a barrier or speed bumps. They are interested in extending the double yellow lines. It's interesting to note that at least one councillor at the last DCC meeting - on seeing the report - chose not to give their support to a feasibility study looking into traffic calming on Melbourne Grove (including a barrier). As I understand it there is a degree of pointlessness in entering into a feasibility study when the Highways Department have expressed such a view. I'm co-ordinating with a number of local residents who want a more informed and joined-up approach to traffic management in the area. We now have a formal petition - opposing a barrier on Melbourne Grove - on change.org and a central email address for anyone interested in this issue. Details will be posted shortly on the Melbourne Grove thread.

Hi ED_moots It's a good idea to put in a 'Freedom of Information' request to view the documents submitted by the deputation to the last DCC meeting. I've now looked at some - but not all - of those documents. I asked the council for a copy of the deputation request and the list of 'supporting' signatures that accompanied it. I can now confirm what I was told by council officers. There is no statement at the top of any of the pages of signatures so they do not constitute a request for a specific measure (ie a barrier). The signatures may have been gathered at any point during an ongoing campaign which began with more modest proposals for traffic calming. I've sent you a PM about this.

Hi James You said 'Hi Jenny1, I think your concern may be unavoidable. If the majority of Melbourne Grove residents still want to close their road at one end and many other residents would prefer it wasn't closed then we will have different parts of our community with different views.' But that's my point James. My concern is completely avoidable. We absolutely do not know that a majority of the residents of Melbourne Grove want to close their road at one end. Have you noted my posts about the difference between a petition calling for a specific measure (which we do not have) and an informal list of signatures calling for general traffic calming measures (which we do have)? The distinction is very important.

I want to echo some of mockingbird's concerns. I fear that this issue is being handled in a way that sets parts of the community against each other. This is a completely false conflict. As stated in a previous post we do not have evidence that a majority of people on Melbourne Grove are calling for a barrier. Simply that the majority of the people on the road are in favour of general traffic calming measures.

Hi James. I see this a little differently. You said.... (Hi Jenny1, I don't recall any such consultation 5 years ago. I certainly recall conversations between several residents and then I had with then local Tories who were against speed bumps replacing speed cushions. I suspect if this change had proceeded then we wouldn't be having these discussions now.) In 2009 we - as residents of Melbourne Grove - were sent an official Southwark council letter asking us if we wanted full width speed bumps and some changes of road layout to calm the traffic. Southwark said they were due to resurface the road and wanted to consult with us to make sure that we wanted the existing partial speed bumps kept - rather than anything more dramatic put in. The residents voted against the more dramatic measures - making clear they preferred the partial 'bumps'. If asked to vote again tomorrow maybe residents would go for something different. Though to be honest I'd be surprised if they picked full width bumps given that - as recent threads on this forum show - many local residents are campaigning to get these removed because they can cause noise disturbance and structural damage to houses. That's why many favour pedestrian 'islands' or 'build-outs' to narrow parts of the road. I do think though that it's important to respect the fact that only five years ago (when surveys show that traffic conditions were much the same as they are now) residents responded to an official Southwark consultation by saying 'Please don't change anything. We're happy with what we've got already'. I don't think it's fair to ignore that.

Hi James You asked about the previous surveys/consultations on traffic management on Melbourne Grove. The first was in 2004 (If I remember correctly). A number of options were considered for the road - including full width speed bumps. In the end 'cushions' (or partial speed bumps) were chosen - partly so that emergency vehicles wouldn't have to navigate full width bumps. Those 'cushions' were then installed. Five years ago - when the road was due for resurfacing - the issue of traffic calming was looked at again. The council did a survey of the traffic on the road (the results of that are posted higher up on this thread and show that the traffic is much the same now as it was then). The council then consulted residents who voted to keep the 'cushions', rather than go for anything more dramatic. It's these surveys and consultations that led me to say that I think we already have all the information we need about the traffic on the road and the views of its residents. As I said in a previous post I'm not disputing that it's fine for a deputation request to be presented to a community council with pages of signatures attached. But this doesn't - according to Southwark's rules - constitute a petition in favour of a specific measure. All that we can really know is that 138 people on Melbourne Grove (including those who presented the deputation request) have said they're in favour of general traffic calming measures. This means that it would not be correct for a feasibility study to focus on a barrier - as there is no argument that that is what's being called for by the majority of the residents of the road.

Thanks firstmate, BobbyP and Andrew1011. I don't think any councillors have signed up to the deputation request firstmate as there are none living on Melbourne Grove. Hi @Woodwarde. As I understand it it was fine for a deputation request to be presented to the community council suggesting a barrier and other traffic calming measures for Melbourne Grove with a list of signatures attached. And if they like councillors can grant funding for a feasibility study into traffic management based on such a document.(I just happen to think it would have been wiser for them to reflect on the fact that they've paid for two similar studies and consultations in recent years and thus already have all the information they need on Melbourne Grove and the views of its residents.) But an impression seems to have been created somewhere along the line that more than a hundred people on Melbourne Grove have signed up to an actual petition specifically asking for a barrier on the road. That's not right. Because there was no statement at the top of any of the pages of signatures submitted people might well have simply been expressing a general concern about traffic. The distinction is important. I'm talking to other residents of the immediate area who would prefer the council to come up with a more joined-up plan of managing the traffic in the whole area. Thinking about safety and access for all residents - no matter which street they live on and whether they're on foot, driving a car or cycling. It would be good to think there was some long term, sophisticated thinking going on about this. Will keep you posted on what we come up with.

I've now communicated with the teams at Southwark who manage community councils and constitutional matters and wanted to update the forum on what I've been told. I talked to Southwark because I had concerns that there may have been muddle in this whole process that led to residents of Melbourne Grove being represented as having backed a 'petition' to block the road, whereas in fact they were simply expressing a wish for general traffic calming measures. The information I now have has reinforced my concerns. Southwark's guidelines say that a petition can only be presented to a community council for consideration if it's signed by more than 250 people and must contain 'a clear and concise statement covering the subject of the petition and on each page of the petition' (for obvious reasons). The document submitted to the last Dulwich Community Council met neither requirement. It contained instead a long statement of concern about the speed and volume of traffic on Melbourne Grove and a request that a barrier and other traffic calming measures be considered. This is signed by five people and is what's called a 'deputation request'. Attached to this are further pages (with no statement at the top of any of them) carrying the signatures of 133 people. It's apparently common for 'deputation requests' presented to community councils to be backed by lists of signatories. However it would be a mistake to call such a document a petition in favour of a specific measure. I'm talking to residents on Melbourne Grove and adjacent streets who share my concerns and will keep the forum updated.

.....and sorry - it's spelt 'Clare-Bear'. New members welcome.

Hi James Don't worry about having shredded the petition - I've asked Southwark Council officers to let us know the exact wording and will pass that on once I receive it. The reason why I think it's important to know the precise wording is that I'm concerned that the 138 people who signed the petition may have put their names to a request for 'traffic calming measures' - which clearly covers a number of options that fall a long way short of a barrier. If that's the case it would hardly be fair for their names to be used as 'backing' for such a proposal. You mention that some of those who signed the petition did not infact live on Melbourne Grove South. I assume then that your previous estimate that the petition was signed by 55% of residents of Melbourne Grove South must now be adjusted downwards? You mentioned full width speed bumps as another option for the street. Other threads on the forum have shown how those full width bumps have recently caused so much noise and structural damage to houses in the area that they've had to be removed. I doubt they will be considered a viable option by traffic engineers in the wake of those problems. Other traffic calming options are available of course. (corrected to amend figures)

I have now emailed all six relevant councillors with my concerns about the allocation of a potential ten thousand pounds towards a feasibility study for a scheme which does not appear to be part of any coherent traffic plan for the area. Some have been kind enough to respond. It would not be correct to quote any private correspondence here but it's clear that they will be open to hearing other voices of concern. So I would urge other Forum users who share my view to contact the councillors too (noting that this scheme covers both Village and East Dulwich wards - so that means Rosie Shimmel, James Barber, Anne Kirby, Jane Lyons, Michael Mitchell and Charlie Smith - email addresses are on the Southwark website). As a note James - I see above that you state that at the DCC meeting you and your colleagues were asked to close Melbourne Grove with immediate effect. Did the petition signed by 55% of residents of Melbourne Grove South make this precise request? I haven't been able to find the exact wording of what people signed up to. With thanks.

Hi bodiser. In practise that's what the existing east dulwich food co-op (as mentioned by hpsaucey) already does. As hpsaucy says anyone can join - simply email claire-bear for details. It doesn't run precisely as you describe but the end result is pretty similar - and it may evolve over time if members' needs change.

As a postscript James. I'm really appreciative of the fact that you make yourself so available via the forum - clearly not all local councillors offer this. So I'm sending my query above to ALL concerned councillors - both in East Dulwich and Village Wards - for their response too. I'll get back to the Forum to report on any progress. Thanks.

Hi James - Thank you for your response sharing observations on traffic flow in the area. As you say, only a detailed analysis by traffic engineers really shows what's going on. But do we not already have data from research done on Melbourne Grove in 2009 and before? Surely that would give a strong indication of what the knock-on effects of a barrier across Melbourne Grove would be? What data do we already have on this please? Considering this issue as a whole I think it's important to row back a little, draw breath, and look more carefully at what's happened thus far. One of the questions I would like to address is : 'What is the process for allocating council funding (in this case a predicted ten thousand pounds) for a feasibility study to change a road system?' The reason I ask is that I imagine that Southwark has a borough-wide policy on traffic and that you and your fellow councillors are charged with implementing that and allocating budgets accordingly within your ward. I would imagine that money is only allocated for feasibility studies to look at possible changes if it's considered that the proposed changes are a clear priority for the ward (within the overall policy of the borough). And this of course can only be done by looking at the traffic needs of that ward as a whole. I appreciate that a large number of signatures on a petition is an indication that some constituents have a concern over an issue. But I imagine that if we were to organise petitions on any number of similar roads in the area we might gain a similar number of signatures. Since there's not enough funding to pay for numerous feasibility studies we therefore rely on you and your colleagues as councillors to stand back and take a 'global' view of the situation before allocating any council tax funding for such studies. If this does not happen then, at worst, we're in a situation where only those who shout loudest - rather than those with the best case - are heard. Something I'm sure we would all wish to avoid. I had previously imagined that the budgets you and your fellow councillors administer at ward level were subject to competitive bidding. That constituents were invited to submit proposals for consideration that would then join a list for six monthly or annual review. It would then be up to yourselves - consulting the borough centrally if necessary - to decide which merited funding. But this doesn't appear to be how this particular process has evolved. Could you clarify how spending priorities are determined if this is not the case? Many thanks.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > IF a closure occurred on the southern Melbourne > Grove section is would reduce the through traffic > along the northern section. > The study should be able to estimate by how much. > > > Hi James That - to my mind - is a surprising thought. It may be correct - but I'm a little sceptical. Have previous studies shown that the traffic that uses the northern end of Melbourne Grove is predominantly heading from or travelling towards the southern end of Melbourne Grove? As someone who has spent years of their life waiting for the 37 bus at a stop on East Dulwich Grove I've had a lot of time to study the junction between that road and Melbourne Grove. My amateur observations suggest that most traffic using the 'top part' of Melbourne Grove is either coming from, or going to, East Dulwich Grove. I'd be interested to know what the 'stats' show. Like others I'm concerned that because traffic flows are already complex - and will alter when the new schools are built - it's really important to know how any change to road accessibility will affect the whole area. My gut instinct is that it may be best not to do anything.

Hi James If there really are 2,000 vehicles a day using Melbourne Grove (and I assume there must be if that's what the recent survey shows) then my previous statement still stands. I do not - as a resident of the road of 17 years - find them troublesome. The vast majority must be driven by exceptionally careful and considerate drivers for me to remain virtually unaware of them! I am curious as to why you are using Landcroft Road as a benchmark to state that there are excessive levels of traffic on Melbourne Grove - much of which you say is travelling too fast. Why is it considered that Melbourne Grove's traffic volume and speeds should be the same as those of Landcroft Road? I regard the character and size of the roads to be different. And actually I would dispute the fact that there really IS 'excessive speeding' on Melbourne Grove. That's not how I interpret the recent available information. As has been stated above by rch the survey showed that the average speed of vehicles on the road was 19 mph. Surely not 'excessive' in anyone's book. I spend a lot of time walking up and down Melbourne Grove and do not myself own a car. I would love to see less car use in London but do not regard blocking roads as a great way of achieving that. You state that it would take the agreement of ALL the affected residents of Melbourne Grove and adjoining streets to approve the blocking of the road. If that's correct then no counter campaign will be needed against this proposal.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Jenny1, > Apparently the Police have expressed surprise that > such a residential road would have such a huge > volume of traffic - contrasts with Landcroft Road > with 300 cars a day. So it's clear we have a > serious rat run and the petition has a majority of > residents on that road supporting the proposal. > Let all wait until we have a feasibility study and > then talk about its methodology and understanding > of options and forecast changes to our area. Thank you for your response James. I do not see Landcroft Road as being comparable with Melbourne Grove. It is much smaller - and hence much quieter. I also do not see Melbourne Grove as a 'serious rat run'. I spend much of my day at home and am very much aware of what's happening on the road. I walk up and down Melbourne Grove at least twice daily at different times. I have never once thought - 'isn't the traffic awful here'. I can only conclude that the 300 cars a day using the road distribute themselves evenly and considerately throughout a 24 hour period. They've certainly never bothered me. I accept that an effective campaign has been launched on the basis that there IS a problem. But I'm eager that the voices of residents on Melbourne Grove and surrounding roads who do NOT perceive there to be one - and who think blocking Melbourne Grove will create highly undesirable knock-on effects - are heard. I am also saddened that in a time of austerity money is being spent on an issue which - surely - cannot be of the highest priority to the area.

I think this is a terrible idea. I've lived on Melbourne Grove for 17 years and have never found there to be a problem with traffic. It is - in my view - a very quiet and safe road - given that it's in London. I do not own a car. I assume the feasibility study will now happen (not a great use of 5-10 k of council tax in my view). I accept that my voice is only that of one person. I also accept that the people who think there's a problem with speeding cars on Melbourne Grove have done a lot of work to get their petition signed by a lot of people. James Barber states that in the traffic survey many of the vehicles using the Southern half of Melbourne Grove were found to be travelling faster than 20 mph. I would suggest that any study of any similar road in the borough would find precisely the same thing. Are we going to block them all off?

I'm sorry this has become an issue again Chazzle - although I know from your comments on the previous thread that you suspected it would. I'm one of those who objects strongly to the demolition of the cottages on the grounds that they're a unique and characterful part of our architecture in East Dulwich. You'll continue to have my support and, I suspect, that of many others. Do keep us up to date with what's going on.

Hi keekgybreeks Do you mean the owner of numbers 2 and 3 who is making the bid to develop or the owner number 1 (the cottage which wiil remain - attached to the new block - if the development goes ahead)?

I agree Chazzle. I think the more of us who voice our concerns to councillors the better. It's important that they realise that this is something that matters a great deal to a lot of people.

Councillor James Barber has already been helpful on this thread but I think one other thing we can do is alert other local councillors to the issue. I've written to Charlie Smith who's a Labour councillor in East Dulwich Ward. Labour are now the dominant party in Southwark Council so it's important that Charlie's aware of this. I've said that a number of forumites have registered public objections to this proposal and have asked for his advice on how best we can argue our case. I suggest that the more people who can write to their councillors about this the better. As a reminder East Dulwich Ward councillors are: Charlie Smith (labour) [email protected] James Barber (Lib Dem) [email protected] Rosie Shimell (Lib Dem) [email protected] If you live in Village Ward (which is also close to the station) you might want to contact Anne Kirby (Labour) [email protected] Jane Lyons (Concervative) [email protected] Michael Mitchell (Conservative) [email protected]

PS I think the fact that English Heritage said that the 3 cottages were of 'local interest as key elements of the suburban expansion of East Dulwich' would support an application for 'local listing' of these houses. That's the point about 'local listing' I think - it's about what architecture matters in marking the history of an area. And that's why I'd miss these cottages. They were built in the 1860s - as the railway itself - and thousand of miles of track all over the country - were being constructed to herald in the age of steam.

Hi Chazzle. Buildings can get what's called 'local listing' status - granted by the council. I will talk to a friend who's familiar with the way these things work in Southwark - get her advice - and come back with more news.