James Barber

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.

Hi Mockingbird, 15% of those cars are going at excessive - or at least that is the interpretation local police have given to local residents. Hi P68, Residents were asking originally for better traffic calming - initially full road width humps. When they met councillors - not me or Rosie - those councillors suggested a number of measures to achieve the main one being closing the road. So I do not think residents started with this idea. it has been suggested to them as the one likely to have the most desired effect. I personally think it's a good idea in theory but we haven't had a study report back whether it would work or not or a public consultation about it. 'Chief protagonist' at the Dulwich Community Council a number of people spoke for this with one main speaker. They explained that between them they had people who had lived in the area for a couple of years through to 40+ years. Hi rch, Any proposed change would involve emergency services who are statutory consultees. Hi Woodwarde, Melbourne Grove doesn't have 1200 properties. The study will go through all this and quite possibly will invove and orginigation and destination element to inform us.

With the change in tax relief rules for private landlords this seems a bit pointless as it is likely many private landlords will sell up.

Hi ITATM, Yes, a decision to fund a study of the issues reported has been taken. No more no less. Latest I've heard is that this study is now likely to get underway in October and report back to the Dulwich Community Council early 2016. My hunch would be the 27 January meeting. THe meeting papers would be issued a week to 10 days before hand. Recommendations may be do nothing, consult on closing or other options. IF consulting on something and the DCC agrees then that would take place the consultation late Spring for a decision around July 2016 time.

Also worth getting Manchester bars to protect the hinge side of doors. Many residents are away during August - please ensure neighbours houses are obviously giving the appearance of the residents being away. Push letters and leaflet completely through letterboxes for example. Please report ANY suspicious activities to the Police either 999 or 101 if not an emergency. The 5am door kicking would be a 999 call.

Hi ZT,FM, WRT Townley Road/EDG junction I promoted the issue widely, chased when things would come to DCC. Explained deputations and petitions to several groups and generally made a public and private fuss. I explained why I was doing this due to impacts on East Dulwich ward traffic. But the junction is relatively small well into a neighbouring ward. I felt morally limited as a councillor from getting truly 'stuck-in' as I would hope other councillors would when the same happens in East Dulwich ward.

This is useful to know. The letter bypassed councillors as indeed are the reported results. I hope that any final report will include the results of that letter and the feedback.

Hi Mustard, Apologies for the delay - just back from holiday and getting back to normal. Camberwell New and Old Cemeteries are in Peckham Rye ward - Siduhe has kindly stated the councillors for that ward and their email address are [email protected] etc. But these cemeteries are also across the road from College ward whose councillors I'm sure will also be interested - [email protected]@southwark.gov.uk and and also opposite Forest hill ward, Lewisham Council area. Nunhead Cenetery is in Nunhead ward whose councillors are: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],

Also worth noting that withdrawal mean it can be resubmitted without a new fee being paid.

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.

I'm not aware of any funding for such studies in recent years? ie the last decade. A reputation was requested and net the requirements. They presented a document that also included a petition within it from a majority of Melbourne Grovd residents. This came after what must be 6 months + of residents recently raising such concerns. Ward councillors from both wards all agreed to fund a feasibility study to consider the problems related by the deputation. It now seems likely the study will report back early 2016.

Hi Sounds awful - and council housing budgets are ring fenced and separate to council general funds so absolutely no excuse for this. I'm on hiday until Sunday evening. Please contact my ward colleague Cllr Rosie Shimell ASAP [email protected]

Then contact the artist http://www.heatherburrell.co.uk

Please report ASAP via [email protected] if you don't get a prompt response please escalate to me. If some one does this once it's likely they'll do it again. It's our Council Tax to clear this up.

The junction works involve concrete which has to be left to set properly or it will have a shorter life span. Hi FM, Their U.S. No master plan of traffic planning for the area. You do sound increasingly a conspiracy theorist.

I've been told they start August but not holding my breath.

Completely understand why they've done this with 64% of respondents supporting this but I fear the lack of any compromise will make obtaining planning permission bumpier. Hope I'm wrong.

Another year and finally we have full planning permission for the permanent site. Fab new after 4 years of campaigning. Can't wait to cut a ribbon in 12 months time. Huge thank you to everyone who has supported this especially the current parents who submitted letters of support.

Last night Southwark Planning a omitted granted planning permission for the permanent school on the former EAt Dukwich Police station. Many parents submitted supporting comments. So the next step is demolition starting 5 August and then completing the build by the end of August 2016. Very exciting to see this project we started 4 years ago take another big step forward.