intexasatthe moment

Sidhue - maybe it's the effect of the counter terrorism exercise http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33315691

It's ok James someone on the Melbourne Grove thread has posted a link to Southwark's webpage which explains the process very clearly . It was stupid of me not to look there .

Jenny1 - 'What is the process for allocating council funding (in this case a predicted ten thousand pounds) for a feasibility study to change a road system? " excellently put .I've been wondering exactly the same myself . " Since there's not enough funding to pay for numerous feasibility studies we therefore rely on you and your colleagues as councillors to stand back and take a 'global' view of the situation before allocating any council tax funding for such studies. If this does not happen then, at worst, we're in a situation where only those who shout loudest - "

." Not sure they've rejected any dropped kerbs with double yellow lines though. " - you need to read Renata's post again then . " could you help me do this during August and anyone else interested? " - I doubt we'd make a good combination . Posts by me on here ( in an effort to help you ) quoting specific policy items relating to this and attempts to try and get you to see that it wasn't a simple white H bar v. yellow lines issue met with you telling me that I was "overcomplicating" " the matter . And that the issue had been debated " near to death " on the EDF Also when I asked you to talk me through the process of leading a deputation you didn't respond . Why don't you team up with councillors from other persuasions who are also concerned about this ?

And yes ,I do ask . I've repeatedly asked this " 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 ?" intexasatthe moment March 18, 11:25AM James what I don't understand is how this policy came about with out councillors ( or anyone else it seems ) being aware of it or having the opportunity to object or suggest modifications . Doesn't Southwark have decision making process about such traffic issues which involves community councils fairly early on in the process ? What's your view on this James ? but I don't get answers .

James this won't do . Back in August 2014 the issue of double yellow lines was raised .You confirmed that you were unaware of any new ruling ( 27 August, 2014 10:46 ). In November despite many posts from concerned individuals you were still diverting the talk to the issue of Southwark not re painting white lines and missing the point about the 2 metre extension .Finally ,you get the issue James Barber 25 November, 2014 13:08 " But you make a good point about the 2m. This is clearly excessive so I will add that into my request " Prior to this Renata confirmed in October that she was aware of the policy ,that councillors on the P&NCC were unanimous in their objection to it and that she was raising the matter . : Dropped kerb application Posted by Renata Hamvas 09 October, 2014 13:17 It does seem to be a new policy, we had several come up at the recent Peckham and Nunhead Community Council. Almost all were deferred in a unanimous decision by Councillors. One on St Dunstan's Road was approved but only with the stipulation from Councillors that it can't extend outside the dropped kerb to a neighbouring property which doesn't have a dropped kerb. I have communicated my concerns about this new policy. I still haven't had the official response from officers about this. Renata Another poster confirmed that Charlie Smith was also opposing the new policy and taking action - lesalden 09 October, 2014 17:14 . I asked you -18 October, 2014 08:42- whether you and Renata would be co operating on this but you did not respond to the query . It seems to me that posters on the EDF had to fight hard to get your attention on this and that there is little evidence that you had to lead any kind of action in getting other councillors to agree with you .

James - thank you for your update on double yellow lines and dropped kerbs . You always seem to be claiming credit for things and I'm prompted to ask what actions you took that were different from other councillors in this issue . I attend DCC mtgs and when this was raised noted that all councillors were in agreement that this policy should reviewed .There was no dissent to lead . And could you respond to this part of my earlier post " 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 "

Unfortunately we do have an existing set of streets struggling to cope with traffic .We don't have an area set to be developed with new build and a pedestrianised environment created . I don't think " retro fitting " is a viable option and I don't think closing off a few streets here and there will reduce pressure on the overall system. If part of Melbourne Grove is blocked off some of it's residents will have a " nicer place to live " because traffic will be limited in their immediate vicinity .I can't see any benefit to the wider community ,rather the opposite . I don't want to support making life nicer for one group of individuals when that action disadvantages others .

Thank you for granting my request Penguin ,it was bugging me and I lack the skills to attempt the manoeuvre myself .

" And now I get to find out that someone's saying they've "contacted me" 4 or 5 times by reading the forum. And apparently the emergency services no longer serve the area." ? Is this a reference to another thread ?

Yes ,sorry bad choice of words on my part . I guess sticking to the letter of the law ,covering their backs might have been more appropriate . "If you are trying to keep it to time, design and budget, you would project manage this effectively by doing all the statutory requests together" - good point . " We were told right from the beginning that there would be a formal statutory consultation on the whole scheme. There were design changes made to the scheme in March that no one has even seen. They haven't been made public. Who knows what the final design looks like?" there's no way that's ok . I presume that work won't start on the yellow lines and bike lane before a TMO application made and consultation carried out ...

Thanks rch for posting and giving the link to the SLP . It seems odd that when Darren Merrill is stating so clearly that "as we are recording average speeds of around 20 mph this wouldn?t be a road that meets our criteria for priority investment to upgrade the cushions that are already there" that the DCC recommended a costly feasibilty study . I guess any group wanting to submit bids for a project to be funded under Cleaner ,Greener,Safer funding would also be granted thousands of pounds to carry out pre bid studies ?

" The logical conclusion is - all of them except essential main roads. They've done this in other neighbourhoods " but having some pedestrianised estates in Hackney/Islington and Peckham and a square in Borough is hardly the same thing as closing all roads apart from main ones . " The challenge is how best to retro-fit that on to a street grid which pre-dates mass motoring by half a century or more." Where will the funding come from to meet that challenge ?

ooh show us your workings Loz ,how many hours/minutes a day did you assume ?

My reading from the correspondence to JB is that most of the works only need temporary Traffic Orders which have to be advertised but not consulted on . But " certain, limited elements of the scheme 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.Due process will be followed regarding making TMOs for these elements of the scheme " it was possible to start the other works without having to wait for the TMO for the yellow lines and bike lane . That's ok isn't it ?

Hawaii86 - those are horrible experiences and it's particularly upsetting where verbal abuse and children are involved . But such experiences are not unique to Melbourne Grove . The majority of roads around here are not wide enough to allow two vehicles to pass and those that are wide enough are subject to speeding - especially if they are straight . It's also not at all unusual to have wing mirrors knocked off and cars scraped . If these are valid reasons for having a road blocked off where will it end ? How many roads will become culdesacs ? Who and how will it be decided which roads should have feasibilty studies carried out ? What will the criteria be for having a road closed ? How will priority be decided if more roads meet the criteria than there are funds to spend ?

Sidhue from this earlier post rch Yesterday, 03:41PM Just clarifying a couple of points in the interest of accuracy:- 1. The Traffic Survey from April 11-24, 2015, which measured the speeds on Melbourne Grove, was done by a consultant called Applied Traffic ( [www.appliedtraffic.co.uk] ) at the request of the MPS, but the survey wasn't done by MPS, am assuming that the funding came from them. 2. The total average speed measured in the two week exercise was 19mph Northbound and 18mph Southbound, which is under the 20mph Southwark limit. 85% of the traffic wasn't going any faster than 25mph, which is technically not high enough to issue a ticket. 15% of traffic was going at 26mph or higher, but highest speed is unspecified in the report. We've all seen and reported random examples of dangerous driving (I've actually witnessed speeding motorcycles mounting the pavement [!] to avoid police pursuits along here), but I'd like to speak to qualified traffic officers to ascertain how common this problem actually is. It looks as though there is some speeding but I would question whether the reported levels constitute a real problem .

Sorry but I think the terms used to denote different types of road should be amended . I don't doubt that principal and residential are terms of classification rather than description . Handy though that this terminology allows us to forget about real human beings actually residing on main roads .

Ah ,more tips for EADus In case you missed it - don't worry too much about how many signatures you get on the petition . Just claim that it's representative ,that should be good enough to get through the careful scrutiny given by Community Council meetings before they agree to dishing out thousands for studies .

" Intexas... As I understand it schools are free to book these pitches, apart from Harris who where "barred"." "The school is free to book sports pitches on Peckham Rye Common and Peckham Rye Park Extension. " how do we find out which of these statements is correct ?

Perhaps model yourselves on the Melbourne Grove group ? Collect data ,apply a little spin eg 22mph = speeding /breaking the speed limit ,get a petition ,form a delegation to present at a DCC . Oh ,and get councillors on your side .

" But.. the knock on effects of this and the proposed Calton closure on Townley need to be considered very carefully in relation to the Cycle Quietway. If the long term plan is for Townley to carry most/all of the cross-traffic (effectively being upgraded to a main road) & Calton is to be closed, that needs quite a different set of interventions to make the Quietway work than if both Melbourne and Calton remain open to traffic. " quite ,knock on effects . I was really astonished to hear a council officer breezily bat away questions at a DCC meeting about the effect of the proposed changes to the Townley Rd on Calton Ave " not in the remit of the study " . The thought of road closures now being at the whim of articulate middle class groups with Southwark forking out thousands of pounds for studies and no joined up thinking ,terrifies me .

All the roads in this area have seen increased volumes of traffic over the years . All the roads are residential - and guess what ,they're all part of the traffic system and always have been . They've not been turned into being part of a traffic system by stealth or any other means . Improving one person's lot by making things worse for others ,particularly when it's unclear who or how this is arbitrated concerns me . Will the residents in newly created no through roads be required to relinquish car ownership or will they be able to carry on adding to the pollution for the rest of us while isolating themselves from the effects of vehicle movements ?

Ah yes of course , now I get it . We have roads that combine being principal and residential .And these can't have gates . And some roads are purely residential and can have gates . Even if they are important traffic through routes carrying lots of traffic . So the people who live on roads like Barry Rd will suffer increased traffic ,pollution and accidents as they absorb the traffic displaced from roads that become no through roads . And I would imagine the value of property in these gated havens will rise and that of property in the increasingly busy roads will fall . An argument for lower council tax in principal roads I think .Although ,hang on a minute that won't work will it ? We'll all have to bear the cost of traffic works to make residential roads traffic free . And the added health and social costs for those living on principal roads . Thank goodness we've got councillors carefully weighing up competing demands and ensuring that there is the correct balance between making roads purely residential and retaining mobility . No doubt this is a scientific process involving masses of data and borough wide planning .And ear plugs to drown out the he who shouts loudest /is most articulate effect . I can sleep easy in my bed ( suffocating with my windows closed because I live on a principal rd ) knowing that the correct balance will be achieved .

Thanks for vote of support for blocking off Barry Rd edhistory . 4 gates x 6 car parking spaces = loss of 24 car parking spaces = greater likelihood of CPZ and lots of councillor support . I'm on to a winner !