James Barber

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.

Good. Sorry you've had such bother from Southwark council. Fingers crossed it's beautiful summers day.

Kids loved the revolving restaurant. Highlight of the holiday for them! Zoo was fabulous. Reichstag - but you need to book well in advance - was great. They enjoyed a river cruise - Berlin wall museum. Really good city week holiday.

It is outrageous. My recollection is at the planning committee - I was on the committee - the Friend of Peckham Rye objected to the possibility of the then proposed Harris Boys school having any use of the park. Some residents supported this. The committee approved the planning application but some members of the committee - and this is the hazy bit ward councillors as well - wanted a planning condition to block any park use. I proposed but the committee didn't take it up that IF Harris Boys were allowed to use the marked sported pitches then at weekends access to changing facilities at Harris Boys be made available to footie clubs,etc. That they contribute to the drainage system then needed. Win win for everyone. Sadly peoples prejudice against having the school blocked a sensible solution. All told Southwark council could have saved several hundred thousand pounds. So we have the situation other schools bus pupils to the park to use the open space. Harris Boys bus their pupils to other sports grounds. Anyone would think we didn't have climate change. The obvious solution is that one set of pupils is bused to sports provision and Harris Boys be allowed to book sports pitches and walk across the road - take classes out where it would benefit educationally being around green space - biology etc. If you think this is daft then email the Labour leader who could change this - [email protected] and please cc me. I know Harris Federation Chief Executive is seeking a meeting with the Labour leader about other matters. Hopefully this will also be discussed - so this is a really good time to raise the issue.

Hi tessmo, I've asked officers this very question and await a response.

For clarity it wasn't me who suggested closing Melbourne Grove. I was suggesting how to get full width speed humps. Cllr Charlie Smith cam up with the idea of closing Melbourne grove - it appears a really good idea to explore and I wish I had come up with it.

Happy to comment. The Police conducted a traffic survey over a two week period. It found 15,000 vehicles a week using the lower southern section of Melbourne Grove (East Dulwich Grove to Lordship Lane) or just over 2,000 vehicles per day on average. Many were speeding greater than 20mph. Eight local residents were in the deputation giving their views last night and several explained how they'd been abused when asking people not to speed - hence their reticence to be asked to do this on behalf of the Police. They handed out a useful pack that is too large to add here. It will appear on the Southwark council website and I'll link to it then. The pack included a petition where clearly the majority of households and people living on that section want a road closure. They have also started to talk to neighbouring streets and a number of residents from other streets have put on record their support. It will be interesting to see how that support develops. The comment about visiting people 5-6 times was how many attempts to find someone in to ask for their views. Welcome to my world! They were crystal clear that any road closure could only proceed if residents in all directly affected streets had a say. It was reassuring that they understood and accepted this. Some seemed miffed by suggestion that Townley Road residents be consulted when the same courtesy hadn't taken place when Townley Road changes occurred. What we agree last night was to fund a study of the anticipated impacts of closing the road. Once we have that study we will decide how to proceed. Clearly something needs to be done which could range for closing a road to better traffic calming. But until the study is completed - I suspect they have all the data already for this study - we don't know whether a road closure will be thought practicable. Lots of research to suggest some traffic evaporation would occur with a road closure - likely most would use Lordship Lane as an alternative. Some Townley. One final point the deputation made. Melbourne Grove had been closed result for many weeks while the junction was changed with East Dulwich Grove. traffic around the area still kept moving. People adjusted. This seems a pretty compelling real world example that it has worked when implemented temporarily. It would be surprising if people passed the Townley Road junction with Lordship Lane junction if they wanted to proceed westerly along East Dulwich Grove and were then using Melbourne Grove. 2 sides of a triangle. It seems more likely and that's what I mostly seem to witness that people drive cross East Dulwich Grove and are aiming to go up Dog Kennel Hill and vice versa. IF and it's a very big if residents wanted this after the study has been published and we had decided to consult on that as an option I would support a road closure. It would make many local streets fully residential again. If not then as a minimum I'd look for full width road humps to try some level of traffic calming. The suggestion of raised tables at junctions is lovely - but prohibitively expensive. We just don't have anywhere near that level of devolved funding to make that suggestion happen.

Hi OrchardProject, Yes that group disbanded some time ago. We have paid for a management plan of the heights which Southwark Parks have. If you email me direct I'll get you a copy - I may have one on my home computer.

Hi Glemham, Southwark contractors usually deliver such letters. They don't deliver them over a fortnight out as people forget. They usually do it at around the 1 week out mark. If you haven't had anything by Saturday please email me direct so I can chase. thanks.

I'm not sure if the friends group is still active - does anyone know/have contact details? It has a Green Flag so well worth you contacting Southwark Council to point out any issues - [email protected]

I broadly agree with you LM. The EFA chose one application for a new secondary school for East Dulwich. Both applications clearly showed need. If they felt each had covered a different geographic area then they could have asked both to proceed. So that makes me conclude that mostly it's the same supporters from the same areas.

We really need to have a meeting of minds on this. Their will be enough public consultations and planning applications, etc that a strongly divided community could really cause problems for our new local secondary school opening. The implied assumption of lump it for supporters of one of the two applications - could incentivise them to respond to the consultation that it shouldn't go ahead. We all lose with this potential risk. If as some suggest the original proposal was mid the eastern boundary then hopefully the proposal will at least return to that. But with nodal points causing such division I hope they drop the idea. The difference for supporters from DKH would be sub 200m. The supporters of a nodal point much further SEE would be more. But at least using a traditional school point to measure would be seen to be easier to understand, fairer and not appear totally arbitrary to some strong faction.

Hi @Woodwarde, The authorisation was in the recommendation of the Dulwich Community Council - don't recall if the decision was delegated to DCC or cabinet councillor decision. Did you have something in mind? Hi kiera, Thanks. I started a reply to @Woodwarde and was distracted before completing it.

Hi @Woodwarde, Yes. The junction will be closed 4 July -> 1 September. The dates were also advertised in last weeks Southwark News.

GOOD NEWS - Planning permission for this has been granted (8 June)and hopefully it wont be long before the works are undertaken - funded by ?1bn Post office investment fund set-up by the coalition government. James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Post Office have appleid to have a mega revamp of > the Post Office at 76 Lordship Lane. I've attached > the proposed new look and plans. > You can see the full planning application here - > http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?caser > eference=15/AP/1432&system=DC > > What do you think? > > Idea is to make it friendlier, some self-service, > more open counters and one secure counter.

Hi pinkladybird, It is up to UK and european government to ban chemicals that are harmful. Not individual councils. I would urge people to contact an MEP about this issue - https://www.writetothem.com for who our MEP's are. If we had a risk of drinking water being contaminated it would have become evident decades ago and Thames Water make thousands of tests day of water quality.

Hi traveler2, Picture a little dark to really see. If you forward me the email you sent council officers happy to investigate over the weekend. And pop in to see the manager.

Hi Colabottle, I had a a family event booked ages in advance - hence my non attendance. But the consultation event was surely about parents not councillors. I've given my initial input to this consultation. As councillors we have lots of other opportunities to give our views on this. AS the original instigator of this school campaign - the only site available is the Dulwich Hospital site and NHS health plan on building a new health facility n the eastern third of the site. In a perfect world I was always clear the site would have been about 1/2 mile SE of where it actually is to be in the centre of need. The mapping of supporters also shows this - great to be proven correct on that. But with so much contention about nodal points I suspect it will in the end come down to crow flies to the main entrance on East Dulwich Grove. Hi confusedbyitall, I can assure you me and my ward colleagues Cllr Rosie Shimell and at the time Cllr Jonathan Mitchell put in many hundreds of hour before a steering committee was even proposed by us. Much of it over xmas and New Year 2013/14. To suggest otherwise would be perverse.

I don't think they have the skills to appreciate what they need to do around web design. So yes I appreciate the craziness of even having to suggest it but it needs doing ASAP. I wont this sorted ASAP. Do you?