intexasatthe moment

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 !

It's clear that the Committee has agreed that the suggestion is really an excellent plan. But in view of some of the doubts being expressed, may I propose that I recall that after careful consideration, the considered view of the Committee was that, while they considered that the proposal met with broad approval in principle, that some of the principles were sufficiently fundamental in principle, and some of the considerations so complex and finely balanced in practice that in principle it was proposed that the sensible and prudent practice would be to submit the proposal for more detailed consideration, laying stress on the essential continuity of the new proposal with existing principles, the principle of the principal arguments which the proposal proposes and propounds for their approval. In principle. lovely!

There's an awful lot of traffic along Barry Rd .The situation is made worse because it lacks speed humps and is used by buses and other heavy traffic . Additionally because it is long and straight many vehicles reach excessive speeds .The number of joggers running the length of the road add to the mayhem and are a hazard for pedestrians . I feel that the balance has shifted so that the use of the road for mobility reasons is completely out of balance with it's residential nature .The noise ,pollution and danger caused by vehicles along this road is much greater than that experienced by Melbourne Grove residents . I understand that funds are limited in these days of austerity and that many traffic calming measures may be too costly so feel that the provision of gates at either end -junction with Lordship Lane and Peckham Rye ends and additionally at the Underhill Rd junction ( an accident hot spot ) and also the Upland Rd junction should be consulted on . Southwark and local councillors are you listening ?

If the school is free to book sports pitches on Peckham Rye Common and Peckham Rye Park Extension as edhistory says ,what's the problem ? Apart from the school being built on too small a site .

Given that people who live there are saying that the road doesn't seem busy are we quite sure that the following is correct ? " 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." No confusion with the northern end ? I've no idea what would be considered normal or high . Clearly such info will become important if we've got residents wanting their streets closed and councillors who are attempting to balance " mobility " against pleasant places to live . I wonder what that measure is ? What were the vehicle numbers that justified the closure of Friern Rd ? A much busier route I imagine ( and obviously the traffic didn't evaporate but shifted elsewhere to torment others ) but would be interesting to know this or any other streets that might be comparable . Presumably the figures are available ,otherwise the police wouldn't have been surprised .

Thanks MarkT . Very clear .

" 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." actually I'd love to have these 2 reopened ,it drives me bonkers ( still after all the years since Gilkes was closed ) having routes abruptly terminated . I've not adapted ,just seethed . And my seething will increase the more roads /streets this happens to . People might tolerate one or two closures but I suspect they might start organising if it's going to become a common theme . Particularly as Southwark seems to lack any co ordinating planning/strategy over such things .The impact of the Townley Rd plan on Calton Ave is an example .

d.b said "Problem with this whole issue is that MG is not just a residential road, it is important for access to several other roads" JamesB replied "Hi d.b., Melbourne Grove is meant to be just a residential road" ??? do you mean it's meant to be a road without traffic ? presumably " 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" you do . what on earth are you talking about ? Who meant these roads to be " properly residential " ? Should all our streets be " properly residential " ? Who will decide which become blocked off and which don't ?

James - it's probably Penguin68 you meant to ask about satnavs .

Fair point about buses along East Dulwich Grove ,east - west . I think many /all would agree that the 37 needs improving . Is the poor provision here partly linked to Dulwich estate and not wanting buses in its' environs ? That's what I remember being told growing up in the area ?

From the other thread messageRe: Closure of Melbourne Grove to through traffic new Posted by LalKJ Yesterday, 10:58PM Hi Mockingbird Just to clarify - full speed checks were done by the police with the taping across the road, for over a week. What the residents did refuse to do is stand on the road themselves with speed cameras. This was discussed with a couple of the Councillors at the time it was mooted as there has been previous aggression towards people wielding speed cameras, and they advised that it might not be the best thing to do, or be necessary as the police had taken more accurate data over a wider period of time. Options: Reply To This Message?Quote This Message?Reply via Private Message (PM)?Follow This Thread?Report This Message messageRe: Closure of Melbourne Grove to through traffic new Posted by LalKJ Yesterday, 11:01PM Sorry for the follow up - also to clarify the ?5-10k was not allocated for a trial of a barrier but for a feasibility study - which, from what I can gather, will focus on the effects of displacement of any traffic if a barrier were erected.

Throwing money at a trial ? Petition + deputation = ? 5/1000 for a " trial " ? as mockingbird says we can all have a go for any old scheme . - shocking Lack of consultation and following procedure - shocking No one able to provide answers - shocking Al deserve a different adjective ,but I'm too gob smacked to find one .

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1426742,1536588,page=31#msg-1536588 page 31 and onwards on the ".Consultation on ?improving? the junction of East Dulwich Grove, Townley Road and Green Dale" thread

Bawdy -nan you're absolutely right . I hope the talk of catchment areas doesn't distract from your points .

" lobby TfL to increase the bus service down here " - down here to Melbourne Grove ? So distant from Lordship Lane and it's bus services ?

East Dulwich as a gated community - the dream moves closer to reality .

I don't think there was a problem with going to the adjudicator ,a problem that it had to get to that point maybe .

On the note of taking things personally - surely all of us posting are taking things personally enough to be motivated to express our view ? Why shouldn't people take things personally ? championofthehill made the point that she/he wouldn't gain or loose in terms of an offspring gaining a place ,perhaps that sort of post has a wider motivation ,an interest in the bigger picture ?

" Charter is legally bound to follow the Admission Code and the supporting published guidance. " True .But it's also true that for over 12 years the school didn't implement it's admission policy correctly ,choosing to exclude certain pedestrian routes . And this was despite appeals on this point by some tenacious parents being upheld by Southwark .

As has been said many times supporting the creation of a new school does not confer any priority when it comes to getting a place . championofthehill makes perfectly valid points highlighting a geographical area that may be disadvantaged by a particular nodal point . hoonaloona's post ( unintentionally I imagine ) underlines this . There's no suggestion that the new school was proposed only for the area around the Dog Kennel Hill Estate and the Champion Hill and Cleve Hall Estates . Seems divisive to suggest that there has. "I would suggest that Charter Red Post Hill be held to account for this policy that excludes the estates mentioned, and change their policy to "as the crow flies" in line with Charter ED.2 " No easy task .A small group of parents and a local legal eagle put in hours and hours and hours of hard work ( not to mention enduring the inevitable hostility from the school and other parents ) to get the Charter school to implement their existing admissions policy correctly . The group was successful and the adjudicator's report unequivocal. The school could have chosen that time to move to straight line admission and to do away with the ambiguous safe walking distance .Instead it chose to express it's views on autonomy and the adjudicator's report in the South London Press . So I think it would be a hard task to get the school to move to straight line admission. But I might be wrong ,different head now .

richard - you don't think that Southwark would need to consult ? "Camberwell Grove tried to install a tollgate years back to turn the road into a cul de sac. It was thrown out." - ooh I remember that I went to that meeting . Was it really a tollgate ,thought it was just closing it off ? Probably not wise to talk about tollgates ,it'll give people ideas ...

I have to say I agree with everything Bobby P has posted above . Surely this kind of thing( residents requesting that their roads become cul de sacs ) won't be approved by Southwark ?

I think zoned catchment areas where it's stated that say 50% ( or whatever % is deemed reasonable ) of places will be allocated to an inner area and 50% to an outer area would guarantee a wider catchment area .And stop the catchment area shrinking completely as/if the school becomes more popular . But I could be way off the mark .