James Barber

Hi P68, 1. It doesn't mean the traffic levels don't cause people problems. With lower levels of car ownership perhaps people are less forgiving. 2. Manipulative is quite a pejorative way of expressing yourself. 3. I agree with you and hope to see this covered in the feasibility report. Hi first mate, I'm trying to help answer questions as and when I can in between job, family, main councillor duties. Hi ITATM, 1. I'm trying to help residents come to a solution to the problem they've raised. 2. It has far more traffic than almost all other ED residential roads. 3. The Southwark overview is undertaken by Southwark council working with TfL - they create a framework. But it means relatively little is spent in the Dulwich area so we use devolved budgets to try and fix local issues. 4. The feasibility report will tell us for this issue. 5. ditto Hi rahrahrah, Speeding is prevalent on Melbourne Grove and traffic levels are very high for an ED residential street. Why wouldn't we do something radical? Please don't answer the feasibility report will give us the context to properly debate this. I'm signing of from this topic until we have further developments on it.

Hi first mate, So you're a mind reader as well. Amazing. Hi P68, The traffic counts recently done and from 5/6 years ago show remarkably similar traffic number along Melbourne Grove. So the lordship Lane changes between don't seem to have had an impact OR the very slight reduction in car ownership is SE London has countered it. And if putting in pedestrian crossing where none existing is traffic manipulation then I plead guilty - and proud of it. Can anyone really imagine Lordship Lane without its crossings. I did originally want a zebra crossing which was blocked by TfL buses. And on reflection I think they were right to do that. I'm not clear the north bound bus lane is sufficiently valuable to be kept - I'd welcome others views on that. And I do use buses to get around the area, as well as walking, cycling and horror of horrors a car. Hi ITATM, I believe I have answered questions posed.

Hi first mate, I don't know - which is why we have a feasibility study. But I would make an observation. With Thames Water closing Underhill Road for a number of weeks I was expecting traffic chaos. Which is why I fought hard to see if it could be kept open. Underhill Road has something like close to 5,000 cars per day going north and south. But no one seems that bothered. It appears that as a compels system people adjust. it might be that closing Melbourne Grove is a step too far. But it seems more probable that people will adjust.

Hi first mate, It was only a very few years ago people were campaigning to allow cars on all roads in Dulwich Park and not just people with disabilities. This argument has only finally died down in the last year or so... My colleagues and have led on changes to add two crossings to Lordship Lane, raised entry treatments along most of Lordship Lane side roads, full width bumps on Chesterfield, Ashbourne, Hindmans, etc and 20mph on all other ED roads. I hope this all counts as making it better for all residents. I'd like to see better adherence to 20mph on residential roads. I'm not keen on more humps and bumps as they cause other problems. I am keen to explore average speed cameras for roads such as Barry Road. I do think we need to improve the pavements locally especially Lordship Lane and we've allocated some of our limited resources to this. We need to do more - tricky as pavement works can really damage businesses unless executed very quickly. I see no change in the number of parking spaces from these changes. We're currently exploring how we can released North Cross Road on Fridays for parking - currently it's restricted for a near non existent Friday market. This would build on our work ending the figment of officers imagination of the market operating Mon-Thurs and parking restrictions related to that we had removed about three years ago. Where we have road space not used by vehicles but pedestrian congestion I will seek moving it to extra pavement space where it will make walking more attractive. Certainly if people rely on using Melbourne Grove as a rat-run they may have longer journey times IF the feasibility study says closing that road would work AND the idea passes consultation. I'm not aware of any other proposals for our area that could affect journey times. I am aware of a proposal officers are working on of placing double yellow lines on junction corners across East Dulwich to make it clearer about what is considered dangerous parking. Apparently a number of complaints about this. When it comes through I expect to fight for less excessive double yellow lining. The Village ward councillors agreed this at the last Dulwich Community Council for the N.Dulwich triangle and looked a bit miffed when I pressed the point that it looked OTT. They still proceeded. Expectation that it will happen with the CPZ there and no one will really mind. If the CPZ doesn't proceed there it will add unnecessary mayhem.

Hi Jenny1, The noise issues from bumps is mostly from raised treatment - where the whole cross roads is raised e.g. junction of Melbourne Grove with East Dulwich Grove, Barry Road with Goodrich Road. But full bumps do sometimes cause problem especially if not precisely installed. I'm pretty sure the petition was about closing the road but good to double check.

Hi Robin, Because of those questions I'd a quick sample of the petition of 138 and all bar one of the 20 sample were on the electoral roll. Not sure if any one has posted the Police organised report on traffic levels and speeds - please see attached.

You've made my day first mate. I do feel a young 51 ! I'm not anti car - I use them often enough. I'm in favour of people before cars where we have to decide between the two. London's population is expected to increase by 25%. So ye, we are going to be under increasing pressure with many more people travelling through our patch. P68 response is poor grammar on my part. P68 suggested we would support Melbourne Grove residents closing their road as they have more voters than Chesterfield or Ashbourne. Ive not seen the Harris Construction mgmt. plan so I can't tell you what it will contain yet. North Cross Road/Lordship Lane build-outs are taking place where Lordship lane is two lanes wide but traffic can only flow in one lane. Dead road space which will be given over to pedestrians.

I highlighted the case. Southwark officers removed the debris. They agree it looks like vandalism and are investigating. They're considering what tree to replace it with in the new year.

Indeed XIX. They would exit that way going northwards as indeed would Playfield etc. Equally residents on Ashbourne and Chesterfield wouldn't exit northwards via Melbourne. You do currently have a surprising volume of vehicles using your and neighbouring streets. My hunch is that this would fall. but we'll have a better idea with the feasibility study.

Hi Dun, Have you tried Cedges advice/guidance?

Hi BNG, bels123, We support around 30-50 bids each years - many much smaller than this bid admittedly. But we don't consult on them all with every resident. We'd spend all the budget consulting! I suggested to them that they should start talking to residents on affected streets by their proposal. Hi EDAus, Weer will all the traffic go? Good question. Which is why we've agreed to fund a feasibility study to tell us. But of the 2,000+ vehicles IF we proceed and IF it passes public consultation I'd imagine 80% along Lordship Lane. That would increase it's flow from 16,000 today to around 18,000. Can it take that extra traffic? hi first mate, We support a feasibility study. Originally I support them having full speed humps. But then Cllr Charlie Smith suggested they be bolder. I think it might be a good idea. But until we've seen the feasibility study we just don't know. Hi P68, More voters on Ashbourne, Chesterfield individually than the section of Melbourne Grove proposed to have a closure. This isn't about votes. The next local elections are 3 years away and I might not even stand. It's purely about trying to do the best for the area and residents - not do the best for people who don't live in the area who want to get into central London quickly. Hi XIX, Why would anyone going along Lordship Lane keep going along Melbourne Grove if closed then Chesterfield or Ashbourne to re-emerge on Lordship Lane? If the traffic was so awful people were motivated to consider this- the stationary traffic wouldn't let them back out into Lordship Lane again. Hi first mate, Parking survey for the Harris ED Primary school suggests no parking issue. But I've not seen the detailed report just planning officer summary. The construction management plan for the building works has yet to be agreed but I expect it to minimise disruption as much as possible. The build will be undertaken I understand as much off site as possible - ensures better quality and quicker build. It needs to be ready to open September 2016. M&S yes it will generate more traffic and parking which is why we objected repeatedly to it going ahead as now planned. IF Melbourne Grove is closed I would expect a marginal decrease in traffic in other neighbouring roads such as Ashbourne and Chesterfield. Bigger parking picture. Car ownership is creeping down. Vest making Lordship Lane more attractive. I hope that the area area can avoid parking pressure and a CPZ. I really wouldn't want that debate again locally - although with further North Dulwich CPZ likely I expect further parking pressure around ED station. Hi Jenny1, I don't recollect and haven't kept a copy - lots of names and addresses so shredded my copy. Sorry. Hi speedbird, A former councillor. Rather unfortunate she misheard some of the deputation and heckled several times - which certainly raised the temperature!

Hi mockingbird, edhistory, How have we not followed the deputation rules at the Dulwich Community council? Hi Andrew1101, mockingbird, The poor chap who was born and brought up in Bermondsey but killed in Tunisia left Bermondsey a number of decades ago. it seems unfair to criticise local Dulwich version of Southwark News/South London Press for not leading with a non Dulwich story. Hi Andrew1101, Richard tudor, No laws around when people can become parliamentary candidates - but I should have edited my auto signature as I've not gone through the reapproval process and applied to be selected again - simple oversight not to amend my auto signatures. Hi BNG, Residents from Melbourne Grove had been contacting ward councillors for many months, held meetings with residents, newspaper stories, letters to newspapers. This follows on from previous campaigns before I became a councillors - so clearly an ongoing sore. This has not suddenly come out of the wood work. Your awareness of it may be sudden.

Hi Richard tudor, I hadn't spotted my signature needs updating - many thanks for kindly pointing it out. Hi ITATM, Yes do contact the reporter - local newspaper are always looking for stories- they have seen this thread and realise it is contentious - hence why they're reporting it. I've come across a spreadsheet of traffic count data - please see attached for those interested. Hi Andrew1101, At the Dulwich Community Council we were asked to close Melbourne Grove on a trial basis immediately. WE couldn't agree that but officers had indicated in advaince the costs range ?2,500-?10,000 for a study of the problem. So we decided to take that option. As the road is shared between East Dulwich and Village wards the cost is equally shared between those two wards devolved budget. I should point out that it appears 55% of residents already have signed up on that section of Melbourne Grove to support the deputation.

Apologies for not posting before. The latest ward panel on Wednesday 1 July Christchurch, 263 Barry Road my notes: The chair has resigned. A new chair was elected. Crime stats. Iceland, white stuff (3 in one month nought in other), Lloyds pharmacy NCR, experience lots of shop lifting. Police this crime could be designed out - it appears big chains accept loses but report crimes and provide CCTV. So a number of people arrested after the fact rather than making it a harder target. Will M&S be better replacing Iceland. It wont have car park entrance so it must at least be a little better. Patrolling hotspots - ED station, ED Grove, Lordship Lane White Stuff, Iceland, Barry Road, NCR Lloyds pharmacy - repeat! Overall crime per down over the last 12 months. Burglary - spread over time - but a lot 5/6am, around lunch time. No pattern for days. Breeze blocks - kids place these in obvious spot to see if anyone notices them. Wait an hour or two then if unmoved implies no ne around and they use them to smash single pane sash windows - very common to burglaries. If you can replace with double glazing which you can get as sash windows. Motor Vehicle crime - especially mobile phones and sat navs still being left. Even car doors left unlocked especially on drives! 1 robbery in the last month. A number of Police signs have been in the same place and not refreshed across East Dulwich, ad need to be put back into sensible positions on lamp posts. With our Police now based in Camberwell it is more complicated to get a ladder down to ED. So I've asked to use less ?200 from the ED Crime Prevention fund I established years ago to fund a telescopic ladder - they can be carried on buses, car boos, etc and the police will no longer have a reason to not keep these signs up to date and in position. Put derelict shop in touch with owner rep. Barry Road. Etc more road speed signage - would this help reduce speeds? Several years ago former councillors Richard Thomas, Joanthan Mitchell and myself provided speed cameras/guns to the local police. They're calibrated until November - we confirmed we'd pay for recalibration. Agreed Sunday 2 August first session - book via Charlie or me if interested to attend - using the Speed camera on Barry Road. Our Police sgt. will check if we could buy local average speed cameras.

Interesting idea to stem flight demand - http://www.1010uk.org/articles/heres-how-we-can-cut-flights-without-ruining-everyones-holiday

Hi first mate, The junction of Lordship Lane with North Cross Road is not reducing parking. The parking place just before the bus stop there - that meant buses couldn't get near the pavement reliably I'm told are being relocated by changing other lines. Not sure how that see's a dramatic reduction in parking across the shop? M&S will put significantly more pressure on the area. Not much we can do about that now - we objected to the planning permission on the basis of parking but they got their planning permission. Harris school would tend to put pressure on an area that I've never had casework about parking stress. Doesn't guarantee anything but it gives me hope abut that building not causing parking problems.

Hi peckham_rye, alternative flying patterns are indeed full practical - BA have been testing steeper descents. Aircraft manufacturers can make aircraft quieter. Night flights can be banned. None of these will happen without a motivation - campaigning for improvements.

Southwark are about to make some more disabled parking places... LONDON BOROUGH OF SOUTHWARK - DISABLED PERSONS PARKING PLACES Provide new ?at any time? unlimited stay disabled persons parking places, 6 metres in length, at the following locations: CRYSTAL PALACE ROAD, the east side outside No. 71 Crystal Palace Road CRYSTAL PALACE ROAD, the south-east side outside No. 127 Crystal Palace Road FOREST HILL ROAD, the north-east side outside No. 29 Forest Hill Road LANDELLS ROAD, the south-east side outside No. 64 Landells Road SILVESTER ROAD, the south-west side outside Nos. 1-3 Silvester Road TARBERT ROAD, the north-west side outside No. 12 Tarbert Road; Relocate existing disabled persons parking places as follows: HILLSBORO ROAD, the north-west side outside Nos. 5-7 Hillsboro Road ? to be relocated south-westward by 3.5 metres Further information may be obtained by contacting Michael Herd of the council's Public realm projects parking design team by telephone on 020 7525 2131. Copies of the proposed orders http://www.southwark.gov.uk/trafficorders

Hi Lazero, No, haven't found out yet but have asked our ED SNT sgt who is also an ex.traffic sgt. I've asked if we could install average speed cameras on Barry Road and she is finding out if this is possible.

Hi *Bob*, But HACAN have undertake all sorts of work showing Heathrow assertions to be wrong or at best muddled. for example Night flights were critical to the UK economy. Our economy couldn't survive without night flights. HACAN showed this to be wrong. The Davies report say they're no longer needed. HACAN 1 - Heathrow nil on the facts of that debate. So yes they do stunts to get noticed. But they're about providing cogent real arguments to refute Heathrow propaganda.

Don't you love the newspeak of that commission report and Heathrow people. Business travel is going down - so the answer build another runway. Passenger growth is solely confined to the wealthiest flying more - so lets use lots of public money to enable Heathrow to increase capacity for the wealthiest to do this. Subsidising the wealthiest to fly more. While Stansted sits with all the spare capacity London could need for the next 30 years. Cameron doesn't like doing U-turns. He stated categorically in 2009 Heathrow expansion shouldn't happen. This is likely to be a defining decision for the tories and their future. subsidise the wealthiest at the expense of the environment.

No I didn't say that. The petition clearly showed their addresses on Melbourne Grove. I haven't checked whether they're all on the electoral roll at those addresses. I haven't checked if you are richard.

Have been told the flooded road reopened and E&C now much better. Anyone been that way since lunch time?

Hi Richard tudor, The petition was organised by the campaign and obtained 138 signatures from Melbourne Grove - which checking is about 55% of the number of people registered to vote. I can't vouch for if they're all on the electoral roll. Hi hopskip, All East Dulwich and Village ward councillors have had numerous emails from residents about this for circa 4 month before the deputation and had a two page officer report of what our options would be. Hi lpool, IF the feasibility study suggests we proceed. If we decide to proceed and IF a public consultation suggests support then I would expect it to be implemented on a trial basis. The rules as I understand them are such a trial would be 6-24 months. Closing lots of other roads could significantly add cost to the proposal depending on how it is done. One-way streets tend to have far faster traffic - drivers don't have to think about anyone coming he other way. Part of the proposal is to reduce current speeding.

Hi MarkT, Sorry I haven't a clue. It does feel rather made up on the hoof to avoid embarrassment. I was more than puzzled when they introduced the original policy change in the first place. "To remove street clutter we'll no longer allow white H bars painted on the road but instead will have lots of double yellow lines". Truly bizarre.