XIX

Because some expressed a degree of contrition for the way that the case had been handled when the previous application was approved and I therefore assumed that they would wish to ensure that it is handled properly from that point on. But what has happened here is really quite bizarre. James, grateful for a response on my questions above, thanks.

Many thanks for your response James. But is that it? just, 'that's what happened'? I'm sure you can appreciate that for those affected by this development these things are extremely frustrating. It feels like your response above is pretty dismissive/uninterested and its a surprise for you to be so unforthcoming, given that previously you have been so vocal/active/helpful on this issue. And what about the letters of consultation that were seemingly never sent? Has any explanation been given as to why this did not happen? Thanks

Hi James, Ive asked you a couple of questions on the M&S thread (don't want to repeat here) - very grateful for a response when you can, Many thanks

Hi James, Very grateful for a response to my questions above, Many thanks

James, perhaps I've missed it above, but I'm still not clear on: 1. why this has gone to appeal? You said you had called this in for the planning committee to decide. What happened? 2. Even though it is acknowledged that public comments will be carried forward, there still does not seem to be any explanation why no-one received letters about this appeal, when they were quite obviously meant to. Although some might argue that it is a moot point now, it is an important principle. The council, by its own admission, made a proper hash of the earlier application/decision; I really hoped/thought that might be set right for the remainder of this case, but it appears not. Really grateful for any comment/clarification, thanks.

we are on the list and did not get a letter.

We've not received a letter either. So that's three......

Actually having re-read the thread - fair enough RRR. Others - I directed a question to Ros in her/his capacity as leader of the MG delegation. We do not need to go about trying to identify/look into them any further. its not relevant to the debate. I genuinely would like a response to my questions, and no-one would be minded to enter a debate if they felt that they as a person were under scrutiny. So please, lets not go there......

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > mikeb Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > This Ros Atkins? > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ros_Atkins > > I don't think it's helpful to pick on individual > residents or to personalise the debate. Oh come on RRR, she is not being picked on. Ros was named in the council notes earlier in the thread as the leader of the deputation, so it is only reasonable to ask her (or a rep, as I said) to comment on what are entirely reasonable questions about the process. She is absolutely the right person to speak with authority on behalf of the group she leads and dispel any of the confusion out there, so why not direct questions towards her? Thats not picking on her.

That may be so, but I'd still like to hear the details direct from the group themselves. It would be pretty unbelievable if they went to the council with these figures literally plucked out of the air. So, come on melbourne grove barrier people, please set the record straight.....

I have some questions for Ros Atkins (or a rep from the melbourne group) - I can't believe none of you are reading this thread, so it would be good to hear from you direct. In particular, I see in the text above that: "The spokesperson stated following a local consultation which was undertaken by residents, the information gathered showed that 90% of respondents in the neighbouring streets were in favour of traffic calming measures (potentially a barrier) on Melbourne Grove." I would really like to know the detail of this please. I live on Chesterfield Grove and no-one came to ask me whether I wanted a barrier in advance of this meeting. In fact, I don't know of anyone on Chesterfield Grove who was actually spoken to (I'm not saying it def didn't happen; I've just not heard of it). It surely can't be seriously claimed that the letter delivered the day before the meeting informing surrounding streets of your campaign constitutes consultation. I'm interested that you claim that 90% of respondents on surrounding roads (I presume you mean Tell Grove, Ashbourne, Chesterfield, Bassano, Blackwater etc) support your inititive and you have used this to try to convince the council of your case for a barrier. Could you just clarify exactly which roads were consulted? how many were consulted and what were the response figures (for and against)? what they were asked for their views on? Traffic-calming measures? or a barrier? or traffic claming measures (potentially a barrier)? I can't quite be sure from the council notes which are likely to be para-phrased, and there is a significant difference. It would be no surprise that a majority would favour traffic calming measures. But if you have asked them their views on traffic calming and then used this to indicate support for a barrier that would be a misrepresentation. I don't know of one person on Chesterfield or Ashbourne who supports your campaign for a barrier so this 90% figure really surprises me. Really grateful for a response, thanks.

rch, RE your statement: "The pro-barrier residents are entitled to their opinions at the end of the day. But so are the rest of us. What they have done is to unite publicly and speak out formally, so that's what we need to do... otherwise, the only opinion on record will be the pro-barrier, which is what will influence the authorities." Are you willing to co-ordinate this? You would be by far best placed with your experience to know to how to go about speaking out formally to the council to ensure the counter view is heard.......

Unless I've missed something, I don't think we've heard any of the voices of those who actually proposed this thing in the first place here on the EDF (at least since the very start of this thread quite some time ago). I think thats a real shame and has been to the detriment to the quality of discussion/debate, with those on 'the outside' left trying to put the pieces together and work out what is happening based on fragmentary info and investigation - for instance about the status of the petition (or whatever it is!), exactly what was asked for, how many signed it etc - that all could have been clarified in an instant by those responsible if they had wished. The fact that no-one has come forward to answer such questions and meaningfully engage on the subject (after the 'consultation' they did before - a brief note the day before the council meeting - way too little, way too late) has not done anything to give the impression that this is a transparent and open process with rich 2-way dialogue/debate. I hope they realise that to someone on the outside it looks pretty poor - like they've shut up shop - the proposal/petition has gone in and now silence. People on the outside feel like they're in the dark - it feels quite unfair. And of course, James Barber's selective responses do nothing to help. Its pretty natural that with a dearth of info/engagement people will start to get frustrated and even tend toward more cynical views (and conspiracy theories). So please, don't stay out of the debate Melbourne Grove proposers - you should be central in it! The discussion would have been so much more valuable, well-informed and balanced with your voices. you never know - you might even change some people's minds!...... And I actually think its the least you should do - bearing in mind the impact of you protecting your own interests with this barrier on others in the vicinity.

Why is it any more in the wrong section than the original 'elitist' thread?

James, I think you miss the point in saying "It appears that as a compels system people adjust. it might be that closing Melbourne Grove is a step too far. But it seems more probable that people will adjust." Drivers adjusting to the change is a side issue here - it is not the main point of contention - yes they will be a bit inconvenienced by having to take a different route and yes they will likely adjust. The main point here is (or should be) the impact on local residents in terms of traffic displacement etc. So using the argument that it will be fine and people will just get on with it to justify your support disregards the main point which should be central to the debate - the legitimate concerns of those on neighbouring roads.

James, I wasn't talking about lordship lane users turning onto melbourne grove and then back off via ashbourne and chesterfield. I was talking about Melbourne Grove residents themselves - having blocked their own road off, whenever they want to drive anywhere vaguely northwards they would no doubt end up using Ashbourne/Chesterfield (and onto LL northbound) and therefore turn those roads into rat-runs. Which is a little ironic given they dont like their road being used as a rat-run.

EDAus I agree. Its all very well for Melbourne grove residents to want a traffic-free haven of their own to avoid their road becoming a 'rat-run' for outsiders, but presumably in removing their own convenient route northwards onto EDG and onwards towards Denmark Hill, Camberwell and central London (or anywhere!), they will use Ashbourne and Chesterfield, and we will become their 'rat-run'. But i guess they consider that ok......

cedarbifoldcompany.com are good. we used them. very happy.

No rush, just interested in your response! The false comparison im referring to (the deputations, then repeated by you) is as follows. You stated: "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." My point was that I dont think this comparison is fair. Yes, Melbourne Grove was closed by the works (the similarity the deputation raises), but in that case the closure did not prevent people driving round Tell Grove and on to (or off) Melbourne Grove, which is a very quick and easy alternative. This would not be the case in this proposal where the barrier would be between Tell Grove and Ashbourne Grove (which would mean a much longer diversion), so the comparison is not valid. That is my point!

I agree with EDAus as a Chesterfield Grove resident. This was only raised with us this week, so it will be good to hear more on it as it develops. James - do you have any response to my point above? LalKJ has warned against the spread of misinformation - this applies to the deputation as much as to any objectors. of course the deputation want this to happen, but it is important that this is played straight - they, you and any others should not be making false comparisons to make the case stronger.

James, Im not sure the temporary closure of the Melbourne Grove/EDG junction for road works a few months back is as you put it a 'compelling real world example' that such a change has worked. Im sure (though standing by to be corrected) that Tell Grove remained open, which meant that anyone wishing to access or leave Melbourne Grove could just nip round the corner via Tell Grove. This new proposal is an entirely different proposition which would prevent any access from EDG (forcing people all the way round onto Lordship Lane), and it is therefore misleading (whether wilfully or not) to directly compare the two.

Many thanks all for your useful feedback - much appreciated. XIX

Thanks all for your feedback - really useful. I have PM'ed a couple of you with just a couple of questions - really grateful for your assistance.

Many thanks Mima08 - that's really useful! Have you found that there has been good continuity with staff or is there quite a high turnover? And do the staff have warm relationships with the children? Does anyone else have any additional comments?

Hello, I know there are quite a few nursery posts out there but would be really grateful for feedback on this specific question if at all possible... Can anyone recommend either little jungle or gumboots nurseries for a nearly 3 yr old? Alternatively if you have feedback on state nurseries worth considering in east Dulwich and info on their hours of provision, that'd be really helpful. Thanks a lot!