richard tudor

dumpertruck Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, I saw that. It was quite well publicised. Not > at all sure what's so sneaky about it - councils > are having to make cuts. Did you know that Tooley Street and the other brand new New Cross office have spent ?169.000.00 on refreshments for staff drinks in the last financial year.

bob Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Making the pavement almost twice as wide and the > road twice as narrow ?????? > Bob S Will reduce the cost of a barrier if Cllr B thinks it might be a good idea if someone considers it a good idea to boost property valves

If people used old fashioned common sense remembering that pavements are for walking on all this talk about closure would not be needed. If you want to cross look to make sure all is clear. Common sense from the past not tinged with some underlying green, we must get rid of cars, agenda. If all Cllrs actually applied this train of thought many of these ideas would not see the light of day.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 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. Why do you refer to MG as a "Rat Run". This has always been a main through fare from the year dot. It has not suddenly appeared. When the residents of Camberwell Grove tried to put a barrier across they tried to classify this major road as a "Rat Run" As someone mentioned The traffic on MG was there before and it is not new.

He will respond saying he is not in power. I have tried to stop all this.

Why has Cllr Barber remainder so tight lipped on all of this. Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer. Perhaps it is time to have full time, fully paid Cllrs and not part time amateurs. We would then get the service and answers that are required. Having worked for Local Authorites you really have to dig deep to join up all the dots. No one gas the time to keep track of all what is being quietly passed.

I asked this question 4 hours ago. Let's hope your articulate post brings results. I suspect this has been decided already.

How will closing one end of the road stop the speeding you keep mentioning There is still road from point A to B. Open end closed end

It will all be done and dusted before you get this information.

Which does what? Would like to know. Thanks

Rather depends on the road. Crystal Palace to bottom of Sydenham Hill/Horimans. Herne Hill to Denmark hill you feel like slitting your wrists. Try driving at 20mph and remain understanding.

bobbsy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The link describes how that model works. There > were various comments on the old 20mph threads > that hinted the older cameras that were in place > couldn't be reprogrammed to 20mph (no idea whether > that was true or not), but the installation of > twin cameras does suggest to me enforcement of > 20mph is now game on! Perhaps Cllr Barber could confirm or deny?

A more to the point why does Cllr Barber not put forward the views of those against. As an aside why does he still promote parliamentary Lib Dem candidate on his thread. It's over dead and died.

Get the feeling that this is a slow slow rip off. Underhand Southwark what do they gave in mind?

You have more chance of winning the lottery

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 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. Only on Tuesday. Wednesday I am Freda and then I please myself

So you have no idea if these people actually live on the road and not non residents who will sign anything if it's green.

How many flats/houses are there in this part of Melbourne Grove. How many people live in this part. How many households signed as separate individuals for the household and not as one house. There may be one householder that said no and another household with 2/3/4 people who said yes. Southwark is very clever in using percentages when it helps. They try to avoid giving actual figures.

jangle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Richard Tudor - 'let's be honest' this is not > about property values, it's about residents having > an opinion on and trying to influence their > quality of life on a heavily used residential > road. Oh and for the record I've lived in ED for > 13 years and on MG for 6 years, does that make me > a new or old resident? Not sure whether I'm > allowed an opinion in your world. > > Original discussions amongst a group of residents > centred around full width speed bumps; it was a > councillor's suggestion to conduct a feasibility > study around a barrier. So, before you write your > own version of how this all came about I suggest > you get your facts straight. Old or new you decide. I have a view so do you.

Let's all be honest, it all has to do with enhancing property values. Making sure over strechec new residents do not face a loss. MG has always been a secondary route to LL and always will be. It is not a new rat run but an established route. Unfortunately new residents seem to have rosy coloured glasses where their property is concerned. All those who went to the Camberwell Grove meeting many years ago will recall that new residents claimed it was a new run. They were laughed at. Just let the matter be although Cllrs egos will no doubt have to be sated. The whole thing is a joke.

To get it you must quote the relevant middleclass buzz words and how extreme and worrying the area has become in safety terms The whole thing is a joke.

rch Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hang on, I think we need to do a factual accuracy > check again... I'm not entirely convinced that the > petition for the barrier actually constitutes a > clear majority of residents. > > In the deputation, they stated that they had 128 > signatures which they claimed represented the > majority of registered voters on the relevant > section of Melbourne Grove. So, as an ex cllr, I > got out an old electoral reg and counted approx > 126 voters on the Village ward side alone (i.e. > the west side), which is only HALF of the relevant > part of Melbourne Grove - the other side being in > East Dulwich ward (the east side). > > I don't think people realise that Melbourne is > actually the boundary between two wards... so, if > the Vil ward side has 126 voters, would the ED > side have roughly the same amount? This would mean > that the total number of registered voters on the > relevant section of the whole road is closer to > 250, which then casts doubt over the claim that > the petition represents a clear majority. > > This number also sheds a bit of light on the > volume of traffic using the road... if there are, > say, 200 car owners on Melbourne coming and going > every day, to say nothing of the immediate side > streets feeding into it, you can quite quickly get > up to 1000 journeys a day between going to and > from work, school runs, shopping, after school > activities within a thriving community. > > As intexas says, the volume of traffic is > increasing everywhere... and especially in the > Dulwich area as the public transport is so bad. > > So, it would be nice to know what the actual > number of residents on the relevant section of > Melbourne is... and how many drive cars (although > those of us who don't drive also get a vote!) > > Having said that, I don't think these figures will > change the concerning displacement issue of a > barrier. It just puts some of the stats being > kicked around into perspective. Thank you for the above. Surprised that the local Cllrs did bring it out into the open. But then they support the closure. Level playing field?

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. Have I misunderstood?

What is quite interesting when one reads these thoughts is you could equate the content to the script of the film Independence Day. Residents went to bed one evening happy that their local area was a haven of peace and tranquility free from the stress of the modern world and next morning instead of a spacecraft cars had invaded their beloved haven of peace. Traffic has existed before and been factored into ones daily living it did not suddenly appear. This should have been thought of before one moved into the road. . I have been using MG both by car and on foot and have never considered it a problem road. LL is completely different and will only get worse. How many houses/flats/residents are there in MG and how many of them, actual numbers have signed the petition. Once again a well established road is being used to inflate and maintain house prices. Cllr Barber says he supports the closure does that mean those against will not get the same support?

Sounds pretty close to the truth