ED_moots

Heres the report on full (thank you James) https://www.dropbox.com/s/04wcka9cby4w23h/C0277%20Melbourne%20Grove%20Safety%20Review%20Rev%20B.PDF?dl=0 Conclusions and recommendations copied verbatim: 9 Conclusions 9.1 The results of the collision analysis and traffic surveys revealed that there are currently no major safety concerns along Melbourne Grove (South) with the exception of the Ashbourne Grove junction where all three collisions at this location involved a motorcyclist being struck by a vehicle emerging from the side road. 9.2 During the site visit a number of issues were identified mainly relating to obstructed visibility at junctions along the route as a result of the lack of parking restrictions, and poor conditions for pedestrians at specific locations. The effectiveness of the speed cushions was also questioned following observations of vehicles straddling the cushions resulting in limited speed reduction. 9.3 It is likely that the two developments at either end of Melbourne Grove (South) which comprise a secondary school and a primary school will lead to an increase in the number of pedestrians and cyclists using Melbourne Grove (South) at school start and finish times. The new developments are also likely to increase parking demand and traffic volume along Melbourne Grove (South). 9.4 The proposed extension of Bus Route No 42 is likely to have little impact on Melbourne Grove (South) other than a potentially small increase in the number of pedestrians using the route to access the bus stops on East Dulwich Grove. 9.5 Introduction of a new Controlled Parking Zone and associated parking restrictions in the area to the northwest of Melbourne Grove (South) is also likely to have little impact on the southern section of Melbourne Grove as the distance between these two sites is far enough that drivers are unlikely to park in Melbourne Grove (South) in order to access parts of North Dulwich. 13 Recommendation 13.1 This safety review has concluded that Melbourne Grove (South) is comparable to other residential streets in Southwark in terms of traffic speed, traffic flow and parking demand. It is recommended that improving visibility at the junctions along the route should be prioritised to improve safety, and improving footway conditions for pedestrians is also implemented. Southwark has already begun a Borough-wide programme to install double yellow lines for a distance of 7m around every junction and therefore Melbourne Grove (South) and its side roads will be treated as part of these works. The cost of constructing all the above measures (Option A) is estimated to be ?19,700. Given the sensitivities around removing trees, it is recommended that an arboricultural survey is conducted of the trees identified in Plan 5, and dependent on the results of this survey, a decision is then made on whether to remove them. 13.2 Although the speed surveys showed that the average speed of traffic along Melbourne Grove (South) was not excessive, the replacement of the speed cushions with sinusoidal humps (Option B) should be considered to target the minority of drivers who do exceed the speed limit by straddling the speed cushions and compromising the safety of vulnerable road users. The installation of humps may also discourage drivers from using the route as a rat-run. 13.3 The impact of the two new educational developments at either end of Melbourne Grove (South) should be carefully considered and steps taken where possible to mitigate potential issues arising from the opening of these sites which might affect the safety and environment of Melbourne Grove (South). I also noted that 1680 students and 180 staff are expected at the new Charter school with barely any parking provision on site. Seems quite comprehensive (should be for 10 grand). Rch, I'm also apalled that chopping trees down is a possible recommendation. It would be a real shame if the result of MGTAG is more double yellows, full width humps and removal of trees. A bit ironic if the allocation of CGS funding indirectly results in chopping trees down too.

Hi James Could it be these works now scheduled for 23/05? No details on the register but comments suggest it's major ie. Road closure. ...here's the link http://streetworks.southwark.gov.uk/details.asp?ref=LBS-SC1455877&org_code=

Thanks for posting this James. Had received no notice thus far.

According to this services from ED will run fine although likely to be busy. Can't imagine services will be unaffected though

Hi Charlie. Thanks for posting this on EDF. I was stuck at work and unable to make the consulation. There still seems no real provision for parking or managing traffic. I estimate nearly 100 staff for a school this size and over 1600 kids arriving every day yet only 12 spaces in site. Surely it's niaive to believe there won't be a significant overspill into neighbouring roads. Furthermore, at the preplanning consultation there were assurances that there would not be a permanent entrance on Jarvis road, it was proposed to be used as a site entrance only to get the temporary phase one buildings into place. Please can you explain these issues? As a resident of Melbourne Grove this is an obvious concern.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'll be mentioning this consultation in SE22 next > month as a starter. I'm also expecting letters to > the area to encourage responses. > > Hi BNG, > In the past I created a thread for every > consultation I came across affecting ED but was > discouraged by Admin from continuing this. It > could swamp the forum. One thread could get really > jumbled. > People can register with Southwark council and > then any consultation affecting East Dulwich from > Southwark Council they should get an email prod > from the council to take part. > > Hi richard tudor, > I've been a little quieter than usual as recently > started a fab new day job. > > Hi ED_moots, > The consultation survey will have clear cut > numbers and hopefully lots of comments as well. I > really don;t think, assuming raw data without > names, will result in some biased report. But I;d > welcome everyone to check it out when produced. If > it does then clearly I;d be seeking a refund of > their fees. Hyperthetically one might notify respondents of a certain opinion of the existence of a survey and not those of differing opinion.

Hello James, request your attention on the Melbourne Grove / barrier thread. Very interested in the aecom works and and details you can provide.

If Conway are doing the assessment then it's a clear conflict of interest. Would we ask tube drivers if they want more money or ISIS to assess if we need more jihadists in London? If Conway are engaged to do work, what is it and where's the assessment dubiously funded by our CGS money?

https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/melbourne-grove-south Online survey. I am not sure how people are supposed to input to these surveys if no one is told. Or maybe that's the point? Does anyone know, James Barber perhaps, how we get more information about this work that aecom are doing? Is the DCC really asking it's main highways contractor ConwayAecom to impartially acces whether we need some road works done?

Seems that aecom have been engaged to do something under works ref LBS-SC1454973. http://streetworks.southwark.gov.uk/details.asp?ref=LBS-SC1454973&org_code= There is also an online survey...

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200084/recycling_and_waste/1667/bulky_waste_collection Worth a try. Costs 16 quid and they're a bit picky.

Great post James, makes perfect sense.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I noticed today rather large square bollard type > things (hard to describe) at the junction of > Melbourne Grove and ED Grove on both sides. They > have also appeared on the junction of Glengarry Rd > into ED Grove. What are these for??? The bollards appeared when the junction buildouts were done and predate the barrier nonsense. They must be a safety feature and probably stop long vehicles turning in. They also prevent you from wandering into the road of you be got your head buried in your phone. It's worth keeping an eye on the charter school development (thread http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1583816,page=3) for more MG traffic issues. The pre planning proposal has very little parking planned or a traffic management plan (yet) and it's a very big school

Thanks for joining the discussion TCSED. Although unofficial you'll get a good measure of local feeling/issues/paranoia. I hope you may also answer some questions as answers become available. Such as... What proportion of the student population at Charter RPH walk to school? Is it 100%. I haven't recently asked an 11-18 year old to walk 2 miles a day and I'm sure most are physically capable but I bet its not an easy sell...

James Barber Wrote: ---------------------------------------- > > Hi ED_moots, > This was an issue from some years ago and is > resolved The admissions issue? I am glad although it remains confusing. Regarding the CPZ around RPH. Does anyone know how it came about? Did the residents want it or the school? Is it a trial or permanent? Just my opinion but the introduction of a CPZ indicates some friction between residents and the school(s) with respect to staff parking and possibly inadequate provision by Charter RPH - a smaller school than the one proposed in ED. It would be interesting to hear the experiences of the residents around Charter RPH.

There is another thread on this and a piece in the guardian with the inferrance being that Charter RPH wanted to exclude entrants from a nearby estate which is connected (in their view) by an unsafe walkway. This 'safest distance' definition is unusual and has been challenged - seems wiffy to me. I would guess the new definition might be to do with the proximity to the railway line and that anyone north of it would be disadvantaged if applying the 'safest walking route' criteria. Oh... And it seems more FAIR (fairer? - Please could a non-driving English teacher help me here)

1680 students will be the population of the school when finished including 6th form. An increase of approx 500 from the original charter proposal. Confirmed by Southwark and Charter project managers and chair of governors with whom I spoke on Tuesday. EFA agreed to funding and exerted cabinet level pressure on NHS property services (that's what it took to agree the deal) to release the site for a school rather than flats ONLY if the intake was increased to 8 form entry. Larger population = larger catchment area and staffing needs = more people driving to the site. 1680 kids @ 30 per form = 56 teachers, add specialist teachers and a management team then support staff and you're easily over 100 staff. Let's be sensible and say half will want or 'need' to drive, that's 50 cars (they might car-share if they happen to live near each other) and nowhere to put them. And that's assuming every single child walks/cycles/buses to school. This isn't a showstopper, just needs a solution provided by Charter and NHS. Looking forward to their joint traffic survey. Maybe a barrier at both ends of MG North?!

Ps. The obvious and sensible solution is a shared parking space with the nhs plot. Efficient use of space. but I know that coopration with nhs property services is proving difficult.

Charter have some very ambitious targets for this new school. We can't realistically expect or want them to discriminate against teachers that drive, if they are the best ones. James. Everyone knows you're anti car. I respect that but please do not bring that agenda into this (cpz already raised on this thread). People who live near the site have to consider the reality of a 1680 student school arriving. The traffic movements aren't comparable with the hospital 30 years ago. I agree a subteranean car park would cost a bit more but the efa agreed to slap another storey on easily enough. They wanted the school to take more places so should accommodate more staff without relying on nearby roads. If you want to keep the nonspecific garden space then it could go under the MUGA court. Why, exactly would the sports hall have to go? It's disappointing that no proper playing field is proposed btw. Astro is not great for most outdoor sports. I remind myself that this is only pre planning proposal and I expect the planning consultation process to account for the parking concerns.

Underground car park?

Ed_pete the second petition is primarily a rebuttal to the first, where a problem has been concocted and presented to the DCC in order to justify the effective closure of a well used road. It set a worrying precedent when the DCC accepted the initial deputation as a real problem and diverted CGS funding to grease the wheels since the council officers report confirmed there was no speeding issue and MG would not be considered for a barrier. The part about wanting a cohesive traffic policy is just common sense in my opinion, every urban community should have some sort of transport plan in the interests of ALL road (and pavement) users; and not least to prevent trumped up schemes being given credence by the DCC.

Clearly then, that submission does not constitute a petition and should not have been accepted as such. A clearly defined appeal must form part of any petition. These names could be come from anywhere and have been garnered under any pretence. The ?3m csg fund should be handled with due diligence. With a quiet submission to the dcc, some canny PR and presentation of some dodgy stats, one wonders what other schemes might receive funding.

holymoly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ED_moots Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > I respect James Barber's efforts to participate > as > > there is no obligation on his part but, whilst > > questions are only partially answered and > details > > of this process remain unclear, it's only > adding > > fuel to the fire. > > The Lordship Lane side of Melbourne Grove and > roads off it (Tell, Ashbourne etc) are part of > East Dulwich Ward. James Barber, Rosie Schimell, > Charlie Smith are our Councillors here. I expect > them to get involved and to be open minded to all > residents' needs. > > And reading between the lines and information now > emerging - they did get a Southwark officer's > input to the Melbourne speeding issue in time for > an open discussion at the June DCC which they did > not bring into the debate. Holy moly. I just meant there's no obligation to participate on this thread on an unofficial web forum. Of course I would expect all DCC members to engage with local issues and respond to concerns raised by the whole community - employing due process and objectivity, especially when allocating public money. In this case that hasn't happened but there's really no recourse on EDF. Which is why I asked for an email address from those coordinating the alternative view. Btw. The DCC agenda on 24/6, item 6 concerns the deputation by MGTAG and specifically mentions double yellows. I have made a freedom of information request to the council for the material submitted by the deputation, including the petition. Will post here unless it is included in the minutes; which I doubt.