James Barber

And how much impact it has on local businesses.

Hi first mate, Officer has stated an order was made 8 May 2014. I will hunt though minutes over the next fortnight to try and track down which meeting before then would have made that decision and then provide a link so you can see the relevant documentation - and I'd very much like to check it out. As the officer stated the consolidation order will amalgamate 60 different amendments since 2012.

hi Jenny1, The document you've described is different to the one councillors received. The one we were emailed and handed had photos and ore pages. Hi bob, I've asked twice now. IT is taking a ridiculously long time.

Hi P68, We already have this type of road closure in a number f places locally. Milo Road, Friern Road, Gilkes Crescent instantly come to mind. It isn't that revolutionary. IF it ever comes to pass that section of Melbourne grove would have a lower priority to maintain - and also much less need. So it would receive less public funding.

Hi Peckhamgatecrasher, Adys Road a little outside East Dulwich ward - but if it was closed Crystal Palace Road would be less busy ;o) Hi Andrew1011, Are you speaking as resident of Melbourne Grove? The police said they were amazed at how many vehicles use the southern section of Melbourne Grove each day. Looking at traffic stat for all our local roads it clearly is experiencing much more traffic than 90% of the other residential roads in the area. hi BNG, The submission from the deputation at June DCC showed a majority of residents of Melbourne Grove. So perhaps I over egged when I said most and should have stated majority. This assumes non have since changed their minds. Hi F1, I don't know Clapham. How have they solved this type of problem? Perhaps a visit is in order. hi Robin, I think it does. you think it doesn't. The council officer report should be able to nail this one way or another. But 15% of traffic going over 25mph is many hundreds of vehicles each day speeding. You think this means no speeding problem as average speed 19mph. I think 15% going greater than 25mph is a speeding problem.

Hi P68, That seems unfair when residents just don't want so many cars - I'd imagine mostly from outside the area - rat-running down their street. Hi rch, A quarter of cars are speeding down this road. Residents are concerned that it will get worse when they have a school at end end as they frame it. Not sure the odd island would solve speeding or volume. It would also require a loss of much parking to make feasible. Hi first mate, I will check my records and come back to you. I certainly don't recall agreeing to more double yellow lines. Do you happen to know which DCC meeting you're referring to as I could give a speedier answer.

I've asked what enforcement council officers are or did take. What has been described is anti social. Full stop.

I would always expect fellow councillors to fully express their views but not try and dictate to other wards. That's the way I approach all issues in the DCC area.

Hi XIX, The propsers made a proposal, a study will be undertaken, then a decision based on the study, a consultation based on that, then a final decision. I'm not aware of any imminent activity in the next 6 months for any of us. This thread is proving how passionate some feel about this issue having a particular solution. But realistically nothing outside officers working on a study will take place for 6 months. I've made this point repeatedly but still some feel something must be happening now. It isn't. So not sure why anyone could be frustrated that more information isn't forthcoming when their isn't any. Hi rahrahrah, Precisely - their is no conspiracy. Yes, residents came with a problem. We agreed to fund a feasibility study of what can and can't be done looking at the wider impacts.

Hi Mickingbird, Kerb build outs would cost circa ?10k-?20k per junction. Melbourne Grove has what 10. We don't have that level of cash each year. We can afford either closing or new speed humps or some other limited capital spend from CGS budgets. Hi Robin, You know we don't have that level of budget. Several times you've intervened in this debate knowing your suggestion isn't uneconomic. I'm unclear why you're being disingenuous about this. Or the sense of urgency for something that will be decided in January ish time initially and then June/July finally.

Hi MarkT, The cautionary statement in the SSDM is correct in my mind and research I've read in the past. I also stated eleswhere on this thread that more double yellow lines doesn't seem useful in my mind. But the SSDM is so silly in places it undermines the sensible bits. The SSDM has been used to insist Chinese granite has to be used on our streets - about as un eco as you can find. So overall the SSDM should be either wholly revised or withdrawn until a proper one can be agreed.

The length of time being taken is quite astonishing. Pease accept my apologies that the contractors FMConways are being allowed to do these works so very slowly by Southwark Council. it will be great when finished but.

Most kids especially younger ones will clearly be going to bed way before the reported noise levels. No event should disturb our community to the degree posted. if you are ever disturbed call the Southwark Council noise team. The more that call them the quicker the response and the quicker they take action. What I'm perplexed about is Alleyns School allowing this. They have 24/7 staff no site. So if you were disturbed even now email [email protected] and copy me. If a number of people report the same problem I'm sure the school would issue an apology.

Hi Robin/RCH, AS per your post officers have recommended - it was only a matter of time - looking at placing double yellow lines to make it more easily enforceable when people park across corners making it hard to cross the road for people. I would prefer this done with kerb build-outs to narrow crossings but we can't afford this at this time. Officers will propose what I consider a ridiculous length of lining - circa 10m from the corner in each direction a la North Dulwich Triangle proposals. I will seek to persuade fellow councillors for the minimum possible. As for double yellow lines more generally. yes, this baffles me as well.

Hi first mate, I have to be honest - I don't know or recall. I wouldn't knowingly agree to increase parking restrictions. Could you please email me directly the issue and I'll try and get reversed or stopped.

Hi rch, IF DCC agrees to new double yellow lines. Some to ensure people can cross the road may make sense but not the 10m from each direction in both directions Village ward councillors have agreed for the North Dulwich Triangle area roads. And yes we've reallocated some CGS underspends as indeed you did for the 8 years you were a cllr Robin. NB. The new round of applications for CGS schemes for 16/17 opens 7 September. With respects to expressing opinions. The law rightly changed after 2010 about councillors having and expressing opinions as long as the councillor wasn't fettered or unwilling to hear new evidence and change their minds. When Melbourne Grove residents came to me I thought full speed width humps the answer. They changed my mind over time by relating stats etc. I'm not sure what the answer should be as we really need to understand what the impacts would be. Hi first mate, Is that what you wanted me to respond to? Hi Charles Notice, A recommendation from the Dulwich Community Council will be made a t some point - my guess early in the new year after any feasibility presented around then. That recommendation is likely to be to consult on an option - full humps, closure, something else. After a report with consultation feedback has been produced we'll then make a decision - my guess is around June/July time 2016. A majority of DCC's 9 councillors will be required at each of those two stages. Normally ward councillors are given more weight in such matters and the other 6 councillors will counsel but rarely vote down ward councillors on a ward specific issue. This part of Melbourne Grove is shared by East Dulwich ward and Village ward so 6 councillors directly concerned and 3 others for a non affected ward. Why do you not hear from the other two East Dulwich ward councillors? For Cllr Rosie Shimell and I it's a division of effort and a natural extension of what I started doing before she was elected - I'd be delighted to handover to her but she recently became engaged and has lots of planning to do. Cllr Charlie Smith when he was elected 2014 did start posting but it seemed if fizzle out. It is a big commitment. P68, Yes, the rail man was good. That was what inspired me to get properly started. Hi Markt, The Southwark Street Design Manual has many flaws. Doesn't allow new cycle parking, etc. Hi Abe_foreman, The deputation followed the rules. One speaker. when cllrs had questions and members from the audience other members of the deputation helped answer them. All normal. If you or anyone else would like to organise a deputation against Melbourne Grove being closed or having speed bumps or anything else - get in touch and I'll walk you through making it happen.

But first mate, Village ward councillors have agreed new double yellow lines - and I tried to persuade them to agree much less dramatic lengths - for all the junction corners in the North Dulwich triangle. This was agreed at the June Dulwich Community Council. These will happen whether the CPZ being consulted on proceeds or does not proceed.

Hi firet Mate, I've been assured it is a consolidation with no additions.

Hi rahrahrah, At what traffic levels would you think rat-running along residential streets to avoid main roads unacceptable? clearly Melbourne Grove residents mostly think they've reached that point,. Heber Road traffic counts - I can't find any for your road. But for surrouinging streets - Pellatt Road west section 654 vehicles a day, east section 321; Silvester Road west section 135, east section 613; Goodrich Road west section 835. hi rch, apart from Melbourne grove I don't see what other rat-run people could divert onto? If you're coming north along lordship Lane and want to go along East Dulwich Grove you'd be daft to not already use Townley Road. If you're planning to go over Dog Kennel Hill you'd use Lordship Lane which is a main road. Vice versa. The issue will be the impact and inconvenience for residents for and against.

I've been assured in writing no new parking restrictions of any kind will result. It genuinely does appear a paper/administrative exercise. Hence why we've not launched a campaign to oppose anything!

This is the email I've received and I've responded asking for a guarantee no additional lining of any kind or double yellow lines etc will be added as a consequence. " Southwark Council - Member enquiry Our Reference: 551054 ________________________________________ Dear Councillor Barber Thank you for your enquiry dated 12th August 2015, in which you requested information regarding yellow lines in the East Dulwich ward. I believe you are referring to the recent making and publication of a 'consolidation order'. The traffic order which has been advertised is known as a 'consolidation order' which is exactly this -a consolidation of existing traffic orders to ensure these remain manageable and easy to follow. This London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) Consolidation Order 2015(1) ('the 2015 Order') consolidates the London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) Consolidation Order 2012(2) ('the 2012 Order') together with the 60 subsequent amendment orders amending the provisions of the 2012 Order. It is deemed best practice (e.g. in guidelines issued by the British Parking Association) for local authorities undertaking decriminalised parking enforcement to regularly consolidate and maintain the traffic orders forming a basis for that enforcement. This follows the Consolidation Order process laid out in Regulation 21 of the Local Authorities? Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (Statutory Instrument 1996 No. 2489). There are no new restrictions being introduced by way of this consolidation order. The yellow lines you have specifically queried at Ashbourne and Chesterfield and Melbourne Grove were originally included in an order made on 8 May 2014 as part of the Lordship Lane area traffic order and sign decluttering review . The name of the Order was the London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) (Amendment No. 32) Order 2014(3) ('the 2014 Order'). As part of our review process, surveys on street were undertaken by an officer to check that the road markings in existence matched the traffic orders. In the case of Ashbourne Grove and Melbourne Grove the traffic order waiting and loading definitions would have been amended to reflect more closely the markings as existed on street. Chesterfield Road had new lengths of restrictions installed at this time. Statutory stakeholders and ward members including yourself were consulted in the process of making the 2014 Order, on 10 April 2014. I trust this addresses your concerns but if you have any questions about this response please do not hesitate to contact me. "

Hi rahrahrah, Community spirited. Closing the road or using it as a rat run avoiding main roads.

Hi first mate, Many thanks for sign posting that. I've commented on the East Dulwich ward proposed new double yellow lines. They have not been brought to the Dulwich Community Council and local councillors have not agreed them.

Non of the double yellow line changes have been brought to the Dulwich Community Council for our input and recommendation. At the last DCC meeting double yellow lines for the North Dulwich triangle were agreed - I tried to get them toned down as they are completely OTT. I have now raise this matter of East Dulwich ward double yellow lines with officers and will report back.

A concern has been raised. A report about assessing feasibility of options will take place. It will likely report early in the new year. a recommendation will be agreed. Any changes will then be consulted upon. A report of the consultation will be presented - probably June ish. Any agreed changed will take place in roughly 12 months time. We've all gone around and around this which seems a bit premature at this point. hi Mockingbird, Let me be more precise. On the evidence I've seen and my experience along Melbourne Grove (southern section) I believe speeding is an issue and if possible we should make sufficient changes to resolve this. The option to close one end is appealing as it would be the cheapest and have the most impact resolving this. However, I can entirely conceive this might cause unacceptable impacts. I can entirely conceive that even if the forecast impacts are acceptable that it could fail at the consultation stage. I have absolutely no made up my mind and any decision I take would not be fettered. 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. Hi rahrahrah, Traffic counts show Heber Road has only a tiny fraction of the volume or speeding of Melbourne Grove. Cars do not speed down your road all the time. Even so my then ward colleagues Cllr Richard Thomas and Cllr Jonathan Mitchell funded making your road and all the surrounding roads 20mph. But lets suppose you're right. Your argument would appear to be my road has speeding traffic so others streets can't seek to address that problem on their road. Not exactly community spirited.