James Barber

hi rch, It took several years and attempts to get the bus stop removed from Melbourne Grove. I wasn't aware you'd also been trying to get this resolved in the East Dulwich war section of Melbourne Grove. Hi Andrew1011, you can have a full raised junction that doesn't cover the whole junction. This whole junction is a crash hot spot and we'll see over the next few years if it is now much after. Hopefully far fewer crashes, lots of money also saved on top f the avoided human suffering.

If anyone is interested in a meeting to discuss th local aircraft noise - 8 people have contacted me so far. Probably not worth organising a public meeting is September locally with so few expressing an interest.

Apologies ITATM - being lazy and found first item in search about double yellow lines. We had confirmation at the Dulwich Community Council on Wednesday that for non principal roads the requirement for metres of double yellow lines with new dropped kerbs has been dropped - excuse the pun. I'm really chuffed that leading the dissent about this has caused a shift of policy. I still think even for principal roads a more nuanced approach is required - but we've achieved 80% of what is needed on this policy. Result. Apologies to the half dozen households whose dropped kerbs were delayed while we got this resolved. intexasatthe moment Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > James - back to my concern over double yellow > lines 2 metres either side of dropped kerbs ,can > you help mw with the following > > How did this policy come into being with no one > seemingly aware of it ? My reading is that there > should be consultation which at a very early stage > involves Community Councils . Did this happen ? > > Given that DCC have already tried to have > applications with this rule modified approved and > failed ,what are the chances of it being reviewed > ? And the time scale ? And how can we influence > this process ? > > Thanks

Hi joannaoratt, As it was more than 24 hours ago I would report it as stolen via the Police none emergency number 101. Your description may well be of someone known to the Police.

Apologies for losing the original context. I was asked if the steam Fair is allowed to put it's posters around Southwark on Southwark Council railings, properties etc. The officials answer in a letter of all things arrived today and the answer is no. Where council officials see these they're meant to remove them.

/Hi Robin, I;ve contacted officers after visiting the tree today. I can;t imagine how this tree will survive so exposed with the current weather and the coming weeks forecast heatwave. Thanks for highlighting this to me. Sorry about my original unhelpful response.

Hi DF, I guess what you've described is the traffic noise drowning out any other noise. A little further back some feel aircraft noise is much more noticeable. It is for me so I signed up for HACAN who campaign for what I believe would be a better balance.

The we was my ward councillors and I several years when we undertook to make these changes happen. At various points former Cllrs Richard Thomas, Jonathan Mitchell and current fellow councillor Rosie Shimell. Hi wulfhound, I agree. But we don't get a proportion of the total value of the street to improve it. We usually but not always get a relatively small amount of devolved capital budget (?88,000 this FY) to spend on projects covering the whole ward of 5,250 homes. Hi Andrew1011, I attempted to have UK stone used but was over ruled by the Labour administration of Southwark Council. I am an opposition councillor so I don't get what I consider common sense as often as I'd like. Hi Jenny1, I would agree a larger proportion of traffic goes East dulwich Grove from/to the west and up the northern length of Melbourne Grove. But a noticeable portion goes north south along both sections - is it all local traffic to Melbourne residents - it feels larger volume that that - but I've not noticed many cars coming in and out of the Melbourne/Lordship Lane junction. It could be people then using Ashbourne/Chesterfield to reach their streets across Lordship Lane or could be residents. That after all is what the study is meant to be about. Working out the traffic flows before and after the proposal so we can then decide what we think should be consulted on. IF it shows the closure shouldn't proceed it might result in no consultation and the current bumps being upgraded.

No really. Latest research shows business flying is going down - long term trend. People email, video and audio conference call. The increase in air travel is largely a small number of high wealth individuals who are flying much more. So no, the research does not support your thinking Dulwich Fox...this time.

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. If the northern Melbourne Grove section was closed - it would damage the shops - and traffic would divert along Derwent and Elsie. So a lot more complicated. Fortunately some years ago we organised that the no.37 no longer use that northern section, had full road humps installed and car able to fully park on the road rather than blocking the pavement as they used to. I'd love other measures - rising bollards, full tables etc. But the only money available for any of these measures is devolved CGS budgets and it won't run to those types of measures.

Read about Liverpool City Council getting dispensation from DfT to install two thermal cameras at cycle lights. Part of the new Towny Road junction is giving cyclists a head start of several seconds. Adding thermal cameras would mean this only occurs when cyclists are present. I've asked if this can be added into the scheme - it would give a little more capacity back to the overall junction.

How so?

I thought it was a planning condition or in the Section 106 agreement. But checked and couldn't find it so have asked an officer who I think will know why/if the restriction is in place. Harris are clear they're restricted.

On the information I have I support in principle the closure BUT I've yet to see the predicted impacts by traffic engineers. I'm not a traffic engineer so my gut feeling of support could easily be wrong. Equally if the feasibility said it thinks it would work but residents are mostly against it then I wouldn't support it. I suspect I might give a little more weight to people directly affected by the downside of such volumes of traffic which we've established 15% speeding greater than 26mph on 20mph road. What I'm most keen to have explained is impact on northern section of Melbourne Grove which has much higher traffic levels. Lordship Lane and whether it could absorb extra traffic. Ashbourne and Chesterfield Groves - will traffic go up or down. We organised speed bumps on those roads due to speeding complaints from residents so interested how that might change with this proposal. I've checked voter records and I think they've as clear majority in support and we met 20 adults and 3 kids from Melbourne Grove on Wednesday evening - which for a deputation is a great turn out at such an early stage of a campaign.

Hi Robin, Why don't you email Matt Hill direct?

My view. great to get quick response. Officers working to the strict letter of the rules. But it all looks weasly. The officers and cabinet councillors lead I'm sure didn't intend this but that's how it appears. I'm still haunted by the traffic death of a pre teen child trying to negotiate traffic works at junction of East Dulwich Grove with Peckham Rye. From that we had temporary traffic lights with pedestrian phases. Some of the pre main works have involved closing whole pavements - Green Dale eastern side - with no alternatives other than signs saying cross over the road at an unsafe point. We want parents to let kids walk to school. The flip side is councils must ensure walking and cycling routes remain unambiguous for pre teens to negotiate. These pre main works are failing us in that. And I have raised this matter.

Hi d.b Clearly many people have different views on whether the street FEELS dangerous to them or they perceive something or not. Certainly when I've spoken to traffic officers they explain that people perceive higher speeds than vehicles actually travelling at. But the traffic count shows excessive volume and speeding. Yes, the reported crash rate shows nothing except crashes at the junctions of Melbourne Grove with East Dulwich Grove and Lordship Lane. We could expect these to reduce as far fewer people use them IF the study confirms most of the traffic is rat-running/non resident. www.crashmap.co.uk doesn't have 2014 data yet - it normally comes mid august. But council officers and their consultant would get to see the most recent data for their study.

Would people be interested in a public meeting about aircraft noise in Spetember? Please email if yes so we can see numbers. I'd anticipate asking HACAN, CAA, Heathrow and City airport along to discuss and explain.

This is the officers response I've had: " All appropriate permits and temporary traffic management orders are in place. Some works commenced this week on Greendale. These require a permit but no temporary order. The main works start on 4 July. A Temporary traffic management order is required to enable the closure of Townley Road. This order is in place and is what you have seen advertised in the Southwark News. There is no requirement to consider objections for such an order but there is a requirement to advertise - which was done in Southwark News but also by way of a street notice. Therefore the 'main works' including the closure of Townley Road will indeed start on 4 July. Since this directly affects residents, this is the works referred to in the letter. This letter was sent in advance of our printed distribution to a number of local stakeholders and interested parties, including ward councillors and the chair of DCC. In an effort to go over and above our normal level of service, this included the offer of a meeting if there were any detailed elements of the construction programme and diversion arrangements that stakeholders wished to discuss with officers and contractors. Hard copy letters and details of diversionary routes are being delivered to residents in the affected area today and tomorrow. There are certain, limited elements of the scheme that require permanent Traffic management orders to be made. Specifically, where new double yellow line restrictions and mandatory cycle lanes are proposed. These have not yet been advertised but will be in July by way of press advert and street notice. I assume this is the statutory consultation that residents are referring to, which I have already explained has not yet happened. Due process will be followed regarding making TMOs for these elements of the scheme. These elements are not a pre-requisite for the main civil works to be undertaken, and the main works themselves do not require a permanent TMO and therefore do not require a statutory consultation. In an ideal world, these elements would have been advertised, and any objections duly considered, prior to commencing the main works. However, due to the programme pressures of needing the works to be built in the school summer holidays, we have had to progress them in the way that we have. We have plans in place for place for properly considering any objections that we might receive and for amending the detail of the scheme accordingly if those objections are upheld. In line with the council's constitution, any such objections that cannot be informally resolved will be determined by the Cabinet Member for Environment and the Public Realm by way of a formal IDM. I hope this helps explain and clarify any confusion. "

hi DadOf4, Southwark Labour have decided to save money by no longer providing them. I guess once stocks end you'll no longer be able to order them. My take on this is that Southwark voters aren't as bothered about recycling rates anymore so the current administration is letting it go down - and this is one measure towards that. In 2010 they stood on a platform of doubling recycling - they made this promise when the forecast was 24.65% recycling for that year. When they took control it was at 22.16%. We had promised as per the Veolia contract 38% and THEN food waste collection was due to be started. Having messed around with the contract they've yet to reach 38% let along doubling to either 44.32% or 49.3%. They claimed last year they'd double it to 40% - god knows where that came from - it might have been one quarter where leaf fall was included rather than whole year.

Hi jimmyi, This isn't acceptable and I've contacted the head of Southwark Council leisure to ask for an explanation.

Hi Otto, That's useful to understand. Thank you. Hi Bobby P, Indeed I'd be surprised if we couldn't implement full road humps replacing the existing speed cushions - legally they could be replaced whenever Southwark council chooses. That's where residents were when they started. Cllr Charlie Smith had a brain wave when he met them with his Labour village ward colleague suggesting a full closure would do the job much more effectively. I agree it would. we're now assessing whether it would without problems for other street via a feasibility study. Hi Richard Tudor, That's how I see it yes. Hi DadOf4, No, you have an opinion which I don't share. Hi edhistory, A barrier doesn't have to remove six parking spaces - if it's close to a junction where people aren't meant to park it doesn't remove more than one space on the opposing side. some bright spark has been complaining to council officers who are now looking into putting double yellow lines on all the junction corners around there to help enforce the Highway Code and sight lines. You'll see more of this in the autumn. Irony is better sight lines encourage speeding - council left hand and right hand... Hi ITATM, That's not how the committee felt on Weds at all. I would suggest the feeling was residents gave cogent arguments for something that may or may not be feasible. The residents shared a petition with a clear majority of affected Melbourne Grove residents in favour and many anecdotal comments from such residents and from neighbouring streets residents for it. They asked for an immediate temporary closure to test it. I proposed we allocate some funding to undertake a feasibility study and fellow committee members agreed. We await that feasibility study. With regards to Barry Road - that is a principle road as well as residential street. I've repeatedly asked for average speed cameras to try taming it. You can't close principle roads as you've suggested except in truly exceptional circumstance. Even speed humps aren't likely on such bus routes. Neighbours of the raised tables are also suffering already due to volume of vehicles and how many are buses and lorries. Hi Spider69, You really don't know you Yes, Minister if you think my comments enter that world. Hi power08, Yes, it could put more traffic on Matham Grove - so IF the feasibility study suggests it could work and IF councillors were persuaded of the argument, and on the comments and support so far gained I would be in favour AT THIS MOMENT, then residents including Matham Grove would be consulted. Cllr Rosie Shimell and I have put some work in over the years to reduce traffic on Matham Grove and speeding - full speed humps, entry treatment with East Dulwich Grove, removing the sign pointing people down Matham Grove. So I really wouldn't want that good work being undone.

HI Jenny1, Melbourne Grove has over 2,000 vehicles on average per day. Landcroft Road has 300. The difference is the rat-running or their abouts. The average and 85th percentile speeds compared between the two appear to bare this out. You are perfectly at liberty to run a counter campaign against closing Melbourne Grove. If you need any advice how to do that let me know. I want the best possible decision based on residents and evidence of anticipated traffic impacts. Hi Penguin68, Argh. You raised my hopes. I have had a local set of houses added to SatNavs at residents requests and that involved working with Ordnance Survey etc. Enjoyable unusual if long extended casework. But OS I doubt would remove known roads/routes. Hi ITATM, Then I'm afraid we'll have to disagree. Managing the road network for me is balancing competing demands. One set of demands is mobility another is ensuring people have pleasant places to live. When a street is experiencing close to 10x the anticipated traffic volumes with excessive speeding then the balance needs to be shifted. Hi Robin, The Police paid for that traffic survey I believe. I can't see a new rat-run forming Melbourne Grove - Ashbourne Grove to reach East Dulwich Grove if the closure happened. if you want to get to west along East Dulwich Grove you'd already be going via Townley Road. The rat-running I would conjecture is people going to/from Camberwell who would divert onto Lordship Lane which despite having much higher traffic volumes I suspect could absorb this. And you know the CGS budget could never afford 2 of more raised treatments. So not sure why you'd suggest something you know we could never afford? Hi Bobby P, We've been told the Police have stated that Melbourne Grove has far more traffic and speeding traffic than they think right for a residential street. The Police data supports this statement. so yes I stick with something needs to be done,. Originally unimaginatively I assumed full speed humps. Cllr Charlie Smith proposed to the residents that closing the road would be better solution and I suspect he's right. BUT it would take the agreement of all the directly affected residents who live on Melbourne Grove and adjoining streets AND a study suggestions the overall impacts make are worth it. These are big hurdles for the campaign and I wish them success convincing us all. Hi Dadof4, Entertaining and wrong. Hi Richard tudor, I have not said I support the closure. I have said a study will need to be produced and a majority in the area supporting it. The closure appeals to me as it would solve the problem once for all and would be affordable.

Hi d.b., Melbourne Grove is meant to be just a residential road. Hi XIX, Gosh you are in a rush. What false comparisons have I made? I'm not aware of lots of extra traffic via Tell Grove - it may be that residents there could see it was temporary or noticeable extra traffic didn't materialise I don't know. But the proposal IF the study shows it feasible would be to close the road between Tell grove and Ashbourne Grove. We have a number of such closures - Friern Road, Gilkes Crescent that come to mind. I don't recall lots of people seeking them to be removed. People adapt. These streets returned to being properly residential. But we don't know the predicted traffic displacement so we're a long way from anything being more than just proposed as a request. Hi ITATM, Do you know how to get routes removed from SatNav's? Hi EDAus, Yes, you would be impacted which is why this campaign is now talking to other streets as I suggested they do. My hunch would be people aiming to use Lordship Lane that currently access via Melbourne Grove with intention to park on your road would have to act differently. This might reduce traffic. residents on chesterfield would benefit from articulated lorries no longer being able to access their street via Melbourne Grove.

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.