@Woodwarde

The scheduling of questions and presentations/deputations needs a little more scrutiny. I did put a question to the 2nd Feb Cabinet meeting and was advised that it would be put as an FOI ad that Cllr Kieran Williams had asked to be copied on the response. I am going to enquire about the questions and deputations that were accepted. I am interested to understand how the Julie Greer presentation came to be added as it was not on the published agenda and therefore not in the submission timeframe nor published at agenda item 8: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/g6666/Agenda%20frontsheet%20Tuesday%2002-Feb-2021%2011.00%20Cabinet.pdf?T=0 6. MINUTES 1 - 17 To approve as a correct record the minutes of the open section of the meeting held on 19 January 2021. 7. DEPUTATION REQUESTS To consider any deputation requests. The deadline for the receipt of a deputation request is midnight Wednesday 27 January 2021. 8. PETITION: END THE 24/7 CLOSURES AROUND DULWICH VILLAGE JUNCTION AND MELBOURNE GROVE AND IMPLEMENT AN AREA-WIDE, CAMERA-CONTROLLED PERMIT SCHEME THAT ALLOWS FAIR AND REASONABLE ACCESS 18 - 23 To consider a petition from local residents in respect of road closures in Dulwich. 9. LEDBURY ESTATE TOWERS - LEDBURY TOWERS RESIDENTS' BALLOT 24 - 58 Surely our Cabinet process has not been discretionally applied to favour one position over another and different rules for some? I will ask the question but hopefully others on EDF seeing this might also be motivated to do the same. Kieran Williams is new in post and has a lot to prove about his leadership of Council openness and transparency.

@Legalalien - did you mean pages 14-15? Under the Transport section

For those of you having trouble signing the Southwark epetition to: End the 24/7 closures around Dulwich Village junction and Melbourne Grove and implement an area-wide, camera-controlled permit scheme that allows fair and reasonable access. Try this: The Southwark site has two levels of logon. One level of logon is My Southwark used for Council tax etc. The confusing thing about the Southwark web pages is that the Sign In at the top right of the pages is in fact only for My Southwark and cannot (at present) be used for epetitions. There is a separate logon for signing epetitions and if you use the same email address, then I recommend you use a different password. So, to sign a petition, go to following URL, or navigate through Google to the list of Southwark epetitions http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgEPetitionListDisplay.aspx?RPID=774370146&HPID=774370146&VM=2&$LO$=1 Ignore the Sign in at the top right of the page; just scroll down and click the petition. You will be asked to sign in. You may need to Register or reset your password. You can use the same email address as you use for My Southwark but use a different password. And finally if you do reset your password, check your Junk email in case your notification goes there. Hope this helps! Please reply here if so.

There are 2 consultations going on simultaneously and both are related and worth sending in your response: https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/dogkennelhill-1/ Closure date 15th March 2020 https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/our-healthy-streets-dulwich-phase-3/ 29th March 2020 At their heart, they constitute the ongoing desire for the Quietways 7 implementation that Southwark has proposed over the past 5 years. That is, to connect Champion Hill through to Townley Road and across the Village to Turney Road. The proposal to close off Eynella Road is to enable the connectivity of cycling between Barry Road/Crystal Palace Road to travel down Woodwarde Rd and Court Lane through Dulwich Village. Champion Hill access restrictions were trialled, so it?s worth noting that Southwark can do that although not clear how reversible the Champion Hill changes are and whether it was a trial in name only. Of note, the results of the road traffic monitoring for Champion Hill show marginal gains for cyclists but they do show traffic diverted through East Dulwich Grove. The proposals for Dulwich Healthy Streets have not so far shown how all parts of our community benefit. On the contrary they are divisive, pitting age, mobility, health and income against schools and cyclists. Any agreed scheme should not split our full community, disadvantage strata of our community nor resulted in penned in areas. Southwark have not articulated their analysis of the complex cluster of factors that make it difficult for people living and working in affected areas to maintain positive outcomes. Southwark have yet to provide adequate details regarding the anticipated road restrictions, who is allowed into which areas and the mechanism for that. This is needed to respond to the consultation and so that the consultation is meaningful. Upcoming community sessions on 29th Feb and 4 March. There was inadequate time to discuss the closures and impacts at the first community meeting on Feb 8th. Far too much time was spent by our Councillor requesting questions only about statistics (akin to filibustering). Approx 2 hours were spent requesting questions on stats and very limited time left to take questions from residents in A, B and C. A reversal for the next meeting could be requested, so that questions can be raised. It would also be helpful to know how many meetings have been held by Southwark with which groups during the various consultations up to this point. There are still many residents only hearing of the proposals and the distribution of leaflets seems patchy with some not receiving them. Dulwich Library although holding leaflets does not have posters up and one of the staff acknowledged yesterday they did not know about the consultation.

bels123 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > P16 of the evidence pack shows high volume traffic > routes - this should answer your initial question > regarding where traffic using the junction is > going. Not sure how they?d be expected to work out > of school traffic v thru-traffic tbh. It?s info > from ANPR cameras. bels123 - how do you interpret page 16. I would be interested to hear what you understand from the columns, given the context presented (below). What does this mean over the 12 hour period and per hour in your view? PAGE 16 text: The tables below show all routes travelling through the area that have more than 50 motor vehicle journeys in a typical weekday 12 hour period. The figures show the total number of vehicle movements in that period, as well as the numbers for the morning and evening peaks. This shows high volumes of traffic on many routes through the area ? particularly on Turney Road in both directions, and northbound routes through Dulwich Village. The table below shows the total number of daily through journeys that would be affected by the measures proposed in Our Healthy Streets ? Dulwich: Phase 3. Potentially over 7000 journeys per day could be removed from the Dulwich Village area.

1. School Street design - new terminology not in the Southwark consultation documents. https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/school-street-road-closures?chapter=2&article The presentation on Saturday described the environment aimed for at Townley Road as a School Street - at least at the ED Grove/Townley access junction. This would be an enhancement for Alleyns but not yet for the State schools within the consultation area. I see from the link that there is a trial at Harris East Dulwich if anyone has knowledge of that? The controls described at the meeting on Saturday for extended access restrictions for all vehicles (I am not clear if this excludes coaches as the information given by Southwark is non specific) at the EDG junction with Townley were also described as a School Street closure. 2. CPZ The Consultation documents describe permitted access to the affected Areas A, B and C via camera control. However the A5 pamphlet (page 7) and the presentation on Saturday also advocates CPZ parking controls. Looking at the design for Area B, this seems an inevitable imposition, as the access controls operate only at the Townley Rd access point and anyone wanting free parking for Alleyns will now be encouraged to enter via Court Lane and work their way around to any space on Court lane, the D Roads, Woodwarde, Dovercourt or Beauval.

I have received the HACANEAST postcard to object and have returned it. The aircraft noise is bad most mornings now and a definite impact.

Thanks FT83, I had not found it on search. I see there is also something recently on the Herne Hill Forum. http://www.hernehill.org.uk/news/door-door-sales-scam-or-nottingham-knockers

I have asked our local police team what they know and how they are communicating and raising awareness about it.

That is how they describe themselves and that the selling is part of their rehabilitation. Their labelling/positioning and not mine. They say that it is necessary in order to reach the targets that their rehab has set. But this is nonsense and having looked at more information around the topic, it is clear that no rehab system would use such a meaningless method. And they don't. We have spoken to a number of the individuals and expressed concern for a system that asks them to do this. They look very uncomfortable at this conversation as they know it is a scam, and no doubt they are caught in a complicated relationship with the scam organisers. Anyway, my thread was really to alert people and understand the local scale of this activity at the present time. Some people, for example the elderly, are very vulnerable.

We have been experiencing this over recent months in Woodwarde Rd, with calls, typically on the weekend. Usual positioning of needing to sell a certain amount as part of their rehabilitation. Are any other roads experiencing this at present and have you been reporting it to the police? All young men and one in particular, one who calls himself Curtis, whose manner can be quite intimidating. What times of day/days of the week are they calling and have you had any associated crime that might be related. There has not been anything on this from the police.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi @Woodwarede, > This consultation is proceeding against the express wishes of two of the East Dulwich councillors - myself and Cllr Rosie Shimell. We've become embroiled with the council legal department as the consultation has proceeded in direct contravention of a minuted recommendations of the Dulwich Community Council. Whether you support or object to each individual proposal you need to formally respond to the consultation. Posts here wont count! And officers are clear each junction will be assessed seperately based on responses for that junction. Officers did say the decision would come back toward councillors but have since indicated it will be made by the cabinet councillor. Hi James Very helpful and can you help us all to understand what the process will be? Many people are concerned about this and have been querying through Village Ward ? but of course the issues are common to all Dulwich wards affected. Questions same in nature as yours have been posed by Village Ward Councillors to Southwark about how the decision on this will be made. We have been advised by them: >>Officers are preparing papers which they expect to put in front of the DCC on 1st Feb. As to the status of the DCC in the decision making we now have conflicting advice. At one time it was expected that the DCC would be the decision making body as this process was initiated before the new centralised system was operational. However Jon Hartley read out advice from a senior council legal officer last week that the decision would be taken by Cllr Wingfield and any input by the DCC would be purely advisory. This is a matter for Constitutional Officers and the Labour Group to sort out. >> If Officers are now advising that this is a Statutory consultation only with no prior requirement under the former DCC process then they are arguably working the system to achieve their desired outcome. Are you able to help us understand if the process falls under the old DCC process or the new and what the reasons for that decision are?

Southwark?s full proposal with details for the 123 plus junctions is at: https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/borough-wide-junction-protection/ You can input for each location or road at: https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/borough-wide-junction-protection/consultation/intro/ You need to categorise each response & you can choose from one of 5 options: Only comments submitted with objections need to be addressed by the Council. Options 4 or 5 are appropriate if you want the Council to say whether it accepts or rejects your feedback. The options are: 1. I wholly support this proposal; 2. I support this proposal, but would like the council to consider additional or alternative measures; 3. I neither support or object to this proposal, but would like the council to consider another related matter in this area; 4. I object to part of the proposal, but support or am neutral to other elements of it; 5. I wholly object to this proposal Consultation comments from April: 1. They are unnecessary ? no history of accidents or bad parking ? This is not evidence based ? either on grounds of safety or traffic flow ? There is no history of requests for road markings, or complaints received about obstructive or inconsiderate parking or accidents that have occurred in Woodwarde Road. ? 20 MPH speed limit is working/preventing accidents. ? Raised junctions, white road markings are a sufficient alternative measure. ? Residents? experience is that cars park at a sensible distance from junctions and that cars slow down at junctions to see if side roads are clear. Installing over 15 metres of DYLs at junctions may encourage cars to take corners faster. 2. They destroy the residential character of the street ? turning a quiet conservation area into an urban thoroughfare ? Having nearly 100 metres of double yellow lines is out of keeping with a quiet residential street in a conservation area. This is not a main road and making it look like one will not only spoil the visual aspect of the streetscape but might encourage drivers to treat it as a highway. 3. The changes are too sweeping at a time of so many other local traffic and parking changes ? With the new Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) in N. Dulwich; proposed QuietWay (for which no modelling has been done on traffic diversion from Court Lane to Woodwarde Road should priority change to Calton Avenue); proposed reserved parking for electric charging points; houses unable to install parking in front gardens, there is a high risk these changes could have unintended consequences. 4. They are a waste of taxpayers? money ? because ?this costly exercise? isn?t needed ? It is Kafkaesque ? spending taxpayers? money on a solution to a problem that doesn?t exist ? The proposal is based on the false premise that it would save the Council money to install DYLs at every junction in the Dulwich area, because the unit cost of each set of road markings would come down. However, there is no evidence that requests for DYLs would be made for any of these junctions (the current reactive basis on which junctions are assessed). So the total cost of installing DYLs at 123 junctions ? estimated at over half a million pounds in total ? is based on an entirely speculative hypothesis. ? Although the unit cost may be marginally more expensive to do them individually, it would be more logical to spread the cost over years rather than incur such a massive hit to the Council?s budget. ? It also assumes that all 123 junctions need them. However, not all junctions are the same and, unsurprisingly, most of the 238 junctions in the Dulwich area that have them already are main roads and most of those that do not are residential ones. It is therefore a false assumption to suppose that every junction needs them and, consequently, the financial argument doesn?t stand up to scrutiny 5. They remove parking spaces ? making parking a future problem when it?s not at present ? This is a residential street with few garages and a ban on future off-street parking. ? Even at 7.5 metres it removes nearly 100 metres of kerbside space in Woodwarde Road alone ? The Court Lane, Calton, Beauval , Townley and lengths are even longer - up to 28m. ? Painting yellow lines makes parking illegal. (Currently, although Highway Code advises against, it?s not illegal). ? Elderly residents are concerned they will not be able to park near their homes, preventing them from going out, especially after dark. Those hampered by poorer mobility are at more at risk of tripping and slipping. ? Parents are also concerned - carrying babies/ supervising toddlers is difficult if they have to park some distance away. ? It would create extra noise and pollution as cars drive round and round looking for spaces. ? It will put off visitors to local amenities ? shops, park, church and library - at a time when these are under threat from online shopping and, ironically, council funding cuts. ? There is concern that this could lead to, or force, controlled parking when it doesn?t have to. 6. They ignore residents? views , making a mockery of consulting the public, increasing public distrust of local politicians ? Despite, in the words of the Traffic Officers, ?the vast majority of responses opposed to proposals? in the April general consultation, ?officer recommendations remain unchanged?. Residents understandably feel their views are being ignored and that the public consultation is undemocratic and disingenuous. ? There is a strong and growing concern that proposals to eliminate parking spaces by making parking illegal near junctions is part of a systematic plan to target cars and car owners as a source of Council revenue and that once DYLs have been installed at every junction, the next step will be to make every part of Dulwich a Controlled Parking Zone. With residents? parking permits costing ?125 per car and charging for vans on service visits to houses, this is a major tax-raising revenue earner for the Council.

James If this has been issued in error then I wonder why Southwark parking have now attached coloured posters to lamposts in Dulwich Village advising of the consultation alongside their yellow Statutory notices? Are you sure this has been withdrawn?

Our Village Ward Councillor has advised that Southwark Council will start to place statutory and consultation street notices at each junction in Dulwich wards from next Monday to be completed by the start of the consultation. The consultation starts on Thursday 24 November but you can leave a response on the consultation hub from today. Everyone that makes a response to the consultation will receive an acknowledgement. NOTE: Attached to this post are the questions that are asked on the consultation. From: Herbert, Richard Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 11:34 AM EDITED for privacy: To: Met police; london-fire; personal to local resident(s); Southwark disability forum; British Motorcyclists Federation; Road haulage association ltd; Freight transport association ltd; London TravelWatch; LT Buses network operations; TfL; LTDA; Southwark Cyclists; Sustrans; Veolia; Cc: Herd, Michael; Hartley, Jon; Rose, Catherine; Simmons, Andy; Barber, James; Shimell, Rosie; Smith, Charlie; Kirby, Anne; Lyons, Jane; Mitchell, Michael Subject: [LBS traffic orders] Borough-wide junction protection: College, East Dulwich and Village wards Our ref: H/ND/TMO1617-012 Dear stakeholder London Borough of Southwark Borough-wide junction protection: College, East Dulwich and Village wards The London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) (Amendment No. *) Order 201* In accordance with the council of the London Borough of Southwark's usual procedures on traffic and parking schemes, I wish to draw your attention to the above proposal - the effects of which are described more fully in the documents linked here:- http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/14244/borough-wide_junction_protection_college_east_dulwich_and_village_wards_-_public_notice_dated_24_november_2016 (A text version of the notice is included at the foot of this e-mail to assist reading on mobile devices). If you wish to make any comments regarding these proposals, please send them to me using either the e-mail or postal address below by 22 December 2016. If you have any queries or wish to discuss the matter further, please e-mail [email protected] or call 020 7525 2005. Yours sincerely Richard Herbert Traffic orders officer Highways | network development Southwark council Environment Floor 3 hub 2 160 Tooley Street London SE1 2QH 020 7525 2005 [email protected] www.southwark.gov.uk/trafficorders -- LONDON BOROUGH OF SOUTHWARK BOROUGH-WIDE JUNCTION PROTECTION: COLLEGE, EAST DULWICH AND VILLAGE WARDS The London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) (Amendment No. *) Order 201* 1. Southwark Council hereby GIVES NOTICE that it proposes to make the above order under the powers of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. 2. The effect of the order would be to introduce new lengths of ?at any time? waiting restrictions, 7.5 metres in length (unless otherwise stated), in:- College ward ACACIA GROVE, on both sides at its junction with Alleyn Park (16 metres); ALLEYN PARK, (i) on both sides at its junction with Acacia Grove (16 metres), (ii) on both sides at its junction with Park Hall Road (22 metres on the north-east side, 15 metres on the south-west side; ALLEYN ROAD, (i) on both sides at its junction with Park Hall Road (13.5 metres on the north-east side, 12 metres on the south-west side), (ii) on the north-east side at its junction with Alleyn Crescent, (iii) on the south-west side across the vehicular access adjacent to Nos. 2a-c Alleyn Road (15 metres), (iv) on the west side at its junction with Church Approach (13.7 metres on the south side); BELVOIR ROAD, on both sides at its junction with Underhill Road; CHURCH APPROACH, on both sides at its junction with Alleyn Road; COLLEGE ROAD, (i) the east side, at its junction with Fountain Drive, (ii) the west side, between a point 8 metres south of the boundary of Nos. 126 and 128 and a point 6 metres south of the boundary of Nos. 128 and 130 College Road, (iii) both sides at its junction with Dulwich Wood Park (13 metres), (iv) the west side at its junction with Crystal Court; CRYSTAL PALACE PARADE, the north-west side between its junctions with Fountain Drive and Sydenham Hill (23 metres); DULWICH WOOD AVENUE, (i) the south-east and north side of the western end of the triangular island site opposite The Garvens, No 57 Dulwich Wood Avenue, (ii) the south-west side outside Nos. 51-53 Dulwich Wood Avenue (20 metres); DULWICH WOOD PARK, (i) the north side at its junction with College Road (12.5 metres), (ii) the south side at its junction with Lymer Avenue, (iii) the south-west and south side at its junction with Farquhar Road (10 metres); CRESCENT WOOD ROAD, (i) at its western junction with Sydenham Hill, (ii) the south side at its western junction with the northern access road to Countisbury House, (iii) the south side at its eastern junction with the northern access road to Countisbury House; CROXTED ROAD, (i) on the north-east side at its junction with the service road fronting Nos. 2-10 Croxted Road, (ii) the service road fronting Nos. 2-10 Croxted Road, on both sides of between its junction with the main carriageway of Croxted Road and the boundary of Nos. 8 and 10 Croxted Road; FARQUHAR ROAD, (i) on both sides at its junction with Dulwich Wood Park (26 metres), (ii) on the north-east side at the entrance to garages adjacent to No. 78 Farquhar Road (14 metres), (iii) on the south-west side at its junction with the access road to Glenhurst Court, (iv) on the north-east side at the entrance to garages adjacent to No. 64 Farquhar Road (14 metres), (v) on the north-east side at its junction with Tylney Avenue (24 metres on the north side of the junction), (vi) on the south-west side at its junction with the access road to Lowood Court, (vii) on the north-east side at the entrance to garages at the rear of Nos. 1-12 Tylney Avenue (10 metres); FOUNTAIN DRIVE, (i) the south-west side at its junction with College Road, (ii) the south-west side at its junction with Hogarth Court; ILDERSLY GROVE, on both sides at its junction with Park Hall Road; KINGSWOOD DRIVE, (i) the main carriageway, on the south-east side at its junction with the east to west arm leading to Nos. 12-30 Kingswood Drive (11.5 metres south-west of the junction), (ii) the east to west arm, throughout both sides (17 metres), (iii) the north to south arm fronting Nos. 12-30 Kingswood Drive, the west side at its junction with the east to west arm; LANGTON RISE, on both sides at its junction with Underhill Road; OVERHILL ROAD, (i) on both sides at its junction with Underhill Road, (ii) on the south-east side at its junction with Lordship Lane; PARK HALL ROAD, (i) on the north-west side at its junction with Acacia Road, (ii) on the south-east side at its junction with Alleyn Park (19 metres); (iii) on both sides at its junction with Alleyn Road and Ildersly Grove, (iv) on the north-west side at its junction with the service road fronting Nos. 2-10 Croxted Road; ROUSE GARDENS, (i) the arm fronting Nos. 12-18 Rouse Gardens, on both sides at its junction with the arm fronting Nos. 6-24 Rouse Gardens, (ii) the arm fronting Nos. 6-24 Rouse Gardens, on the east side at its junction with the arm leading to garages at the rear of Linley Court, (iii) the arm fronting Nos. 6-24 Rouse Gardens, on the east side at its junction with the arm fronting Whitfield Court, (iv) the arm leading to garages at the rear of Linley Court, on the south side at its junction with the arm fronting Whitfield Court, (v) the arm fronting Whitfield Court, on both sides at its junction with the arm leading to garages at the rear of Linley Court, (vi) the arm fronting Whitfield Court, on both sides at its junction with the arm fronting Nos. 6-24 Rouse Gardens; SYDENHAM HILL, (i) the west side at its junction with Rock Hill (17 metres north of the junction), (ii) the west side at its southern junction with Woodseyre, (iii) the north-west side at its northern junction with Woodseyre, (iv) the north-west side at its junctions with the access road to Nos. 27-32 Sydenham Hill and Crouchmans Close (15 metres in between these junctions), (v) the north-west side at its western junction with Crescent Wood Road (14 metres south-west of and 24 metres north-east of the junction), (vi) the north side at its junction with the access road to No. 41 Sydenham Hill, (vii) the north-west side at its junction with the southern access road to Countisbury House, (viii) the west side at its junction with the access road to Attleborough Court and Dunton Court; UNDERHILL ROAD, (i) on the east side at its junction with Overhill Road, (ii) on the south-east side at its junction with Langton Rise, (iii) on the north-west side at its junction with the access road to Belvoir Lodge, (iv) on the north-west side at its junction with Belvoir Road; East Dulwich ward ARCHDALE ROAD, on both sides at its junction with Crawthew Grove and Frogley Road; ASHBOURNE GROVE, on both sides at its junction with Melbourne Grove; BARRY ROAD, (i) on the north-west side at its junction with the access road to Halliwell Court, (ii) on the north-west side at its junction with Silvester Road; BASSANO STREET, (i) on the south and north-east sides of the bend in the road outside No. 22 Bassano Street, (ii) on both sides at its junction with Blackwater Street; BLACKWATER STREET, (i) on the north side at its junction with Bassano Street, (ii) on both sides at its junction with Melbourne Grove; CHESTERFIELD GROVE, on the north side at its junction with Melbourne Grove; CRAWTHEW GROVE, (i) on the south-west side at its junction with Archdale Road and Frogley Road, (ii) on the north-east side at its junction with Worlingham Road, (iii) on both sides at its junction with Lacon Road; CREBOR STREET, (i) on both sides at its junction with Upland Road, (ii) on both sides at its junction with Dunstan's Road; CRYSTAL PALACE ROAD, (i) on the north-west side at its junction with the access road to Nos. 158-172 Crystal Palace Road, (ii) on the north-west side at its junction with Landcroft Road, (iii) on both sides at its junction with Silvester Road, (iv) on the west side at its junction with Pellatt Road, (v) on the west side at its junction with Rodwell Road, (vi) on the west side at its junction with Heber Road, (vi) on the north-west side at its junction with Jennings Road, (vii) on both sides at its junction with Goodrich Road (12.5 metres south-west of the junction on the north-west side), (viii) on the north-west side at its junction with Thompson Road; CYRENA ROAD, (i) on both sides at its junction with Silvester Road, (ii) on both sides at its junction with Pellatt Road, (iii) on both sides at its junction with Rodwell Road, (iv) on both sides at its junction with Heber Road; DUNSTAN'S ROAD, (i) on both sides at its junction with Goodrich Road, (ii) on the north-west side at its junction with Crebor Street, (iii) on the north-west side at its junction with Upland Road; ETHEROW STREET, on the south-west side at its junction with Norcroft Gardens; FRIERN ROAD, (i) on both sides at its junction with Goodrich Road (9 metres south-west of the junction), (ii) on the south-east side at its junction with the access road to Nos. 343-437 Friern Road; FROGLEY ROAD, (i) on the south-east side at its junction with Nutfield Road, (ii) on both sides at its junction with Archdale Road and Crawthew Grove; GOODRICH ROAD, (i) on both sides at its junction with Landcroft Road, (ii) on both sides at its junction with Crystal Palace Road (13.5 metres east of the junction on the north side, 9.5 metres east of the junction on the south side), (iii) on both sides at its junction with Landells Road, (iv) on both sides at its junction with Friern Road, (v) on both sides at its junction with Upland Road, (v) on both sides at its junction with Dunstan's Road; HEBER ROAD, (i) on both sides at its junction with Landcroft Road, (ii) on the north side at its junction with Cyrena Road, (iii) on both sides at its junction with Crystal Palace Road; JENNINGS ROAD, (i) on both sides at its junction with Landcroft Road, (ii) on both sides at its junction with Crystal Palace Road; LACON ROAD, on both sides at its junction with Crawthew Grove (12 metres on the west side); LANDCROFT ROAD, (i) on both sides at its junction with Whateley Road, (ii) on the south-east side at its junction with Silvester Road, (iii) on both sides at its junction with Pellatt Road, (iv) on the east side at its junction with Rodwell Road, (v) on both sides at its junction with Heber Road, (vi) on the north-east side at its junction with Jennings Road, (vii) on both sides at its junction with Goodrich Road, (viii) on the north-east side at its junction with Thompson Road, (ix) on both sides at its junction with Crystal Palace Road; LANDELLS ROAD, (i) on both sides at its junction with Goodrich Road, (ii) on both sides at its junction with Goodrich Road; MATHAM GROVE, on both sides at its junction with East Dulwich Grove; MELBOURNE GROVE, (i) on the north-east side at its junction with Tell Grove, (ii) on the north-east side at its junction with Ashbourne Grove, (iii) on the north-east side at its junction with Chesterfield Grove, (iv) on the north-east side at its junction with Blackwater Street; NUTFIELD ROAD, on both sides at its junction with Frogley Road; OXONIAN STREET, on both sides at its junction with Zenoria Street; PELLATT ROAD, (i) on both sides at its junction with Landcroft Road, (ii) on both sides at its junction with Cyrena Road, (iii) on both sides at its junction with Crystal Palace Road; RODWELL ROAD, (i) on both sides at its junction with Landcroft Road, (ii) on both sides at its junction with Cyrena Road, (iii) on both sides at its junction with Crystal Palace Road; SILVESTER ROAD, (i) on both sides at its junction with Landcroft Road, (ii) on both sides at its junction with Cyrena Road, (iii) on both sides at its junction with Crystal Palace Road, (iv) on both sides at its junction with Landells Road; TELL GROVE, (i) on both sides at its junction with East Dulwich Grove, (ii) on the west and north sides at the bend in the road outside No. 2 Tell Grove, (iii) on both sides at its junction with Melbourne Grove; THOMPSON ROAD, (i) on both sides at its junction with Landcroft Road, (ii) on both sides at its junction with Crystal Palace Road; UNDERHILL ROAD, (i) on the south-west side at its junction with Victoria Close, (ii) on both sides at its junction with Upland Road; UPLAND ROAD, (i) on both sides at its junction with Underhill Road, (ii) on the south-east side at its junction with Crebor Street, (iii) on both sides at its junction with Goodrich Road (9 metres south-west of the junction on the north-west side), (iv) on both sides at its junction with Dunstan's Road; WHATELEY ROAD, on the south-west side at its junction with Landcroft Road; WORLINGHAM ROAD, on the north-west side at its junction with Crawthew Grove; ZENORIA STREET, on both sides at its junction with Oxonian Street; Village ward BEAUVAL ROAD, (i) on both sides at its junction with Townley Road, (ii) on the north-east side at its junction with Milo Road, (iii) on both sides at its junction with Woodwarde Road (8.6 metres on the north-east side); BURBAGE ROAD, on both sides at its junction with Turney Road (15 metres south-west of the junction); CALTON AVENUE, on the north-west side at its junction with Gilkes Crescent; COLLEGE ROAD, on the east side at its junction with Frank Dixon Way; COLWELL ROAD, (i) on both sides at its junction with Melbourne Grove, (ii) on the north-west side at its junction with Playfield Crescent, (iii) on the south-east and north-east sides at the bend in the road outside No. 10 Colwell Road; COURT LANE, (i) on the north-east side at its junction with Dekker Road, (ii) on the north-east side at its junction with Desenfans Road, (iii) on the north-east side at its junction with Druce Road, (iv) on the south-west side at its western junction with Court Lane Gardens, (v) on the south-west side at its eastern junction with Court Lane Gardens, (vi) on the north-east side at its junction with Eastlands Crescent, (vii) on both sides at its junction with Lordship Lane (12 metres on the north side, 19 metres on the south side); DEKKER ROAD, (i) on both sides at its junction with Woodwarde Road, (ii) on both sides at its junction with Court Lane; DESENFANS ROAD, (i) on both sides at its junction with Woodwarde Road, (ii) on both sides at its junction with Court Lane; DOVERCOURT ROAD, (i) on both sides at its junction with Townley Road, (ii) on both sides at its junction with Woodwarde Road, (ii) on the south-east side at its junction with Eastlands Crescent, DRUCE ROAD, (i) on both sides at its junction with Woodwarde Road, (ii) on both sides at its junction with Court Lane; EASTLANDS CRECENT, (i) on both sides at its junction with Dovercourt Road, (ii) on both sides at its junction with Court Lane; GILKES CRESCENT, on both sides at its junction with Calton Avenue; GLENGARRY ROAD, (i) on the west side at its junction with Tarbert Road, (ii) on the south-west and north-west sides at the bend in the road outside No. 34 Glengarry Road, (iii) on both sides at its junction with Thorncombe Road; HILLSBORO ROAD, on both sides at its junction with Thorncombe Road; LORDSHIP LANE, on the south-west side at its junction with Court Lane (15 metres either side of the junction); LYTCOTT GROVE, (i) on both sides at its junction with Melbourne Grove, (ii) on both sides at its junction with Playfield Crescent; MELBOURNE GROVE, (i) on the west side at its junction with Lytcott Grove, (ii) on the south-west side at its junction with Colwell Road; MILO ROAD, on both sides at its junction with Beauval Road; PICKWICK ROAD, on both sides at its junction with Turney Road; PLAYFIELD CRECENT, (i) on both sides at its junction with Colwell Road, (ii) on the west and north-west side at the bend in the road outside No. 4 Playfield Crescent, (iii) on both sides at its junction with Lytcott Grove; ROSEWAY, (i) on both sides at its eastern junction with Turney Road, (ii) on both sides at its western junction with Turney Road; TARBERT ROAD, (i) on both sides at its junction with Glengarry Road, (ii) on both sides at its junction with Thorncombe Road; THORNCOMBE ROAD, (i) on both sides at its junction with Glengarry Road (8.8 metres on the south-west side), (ii) on the south-west side at its junction with Hillsboro Road, (iii) on the north-east side at its junction with Tarbert Road, (iv) on the south-east side at its junctions with the access roads to No. 23-41 Hillsboro Road and Velde Way and Delft Way, (v) on the north-east side at its junction with Trossachs Road, (vi) on all sides of the turning head at the north-western end of Thorncombe Road (extending north-westward from a point 2 metres south-east of the north-western boundary of No. 1 Thorncombe Road on the north-east side); TOWNLEY ROAD, (i) on the south-west side at its junction with Dovercourt Road, (ii) on the south side at its junction with Beauval Road; TROSSACHS ROAD, on both sides at its junction with Thorncombe Road; TURNEY ROAD, (i) the north-west side, at its eastern junction with Roseway, (ii) the south-east side, at its junction with Pickwick Road, (iii) the north-west side, at its western junction with Roseway, (iv) on both sides at its junction with Burbage Road (20 metres north-east and 15 metres south-west on the north-west side, 15 metres north-east and 18 metres south-west on the south-east side); WOODWARDE ROAD, (i) on the north-east side at its junction with Beauval Road, (ii) on both sides at its junction with Dovercourt Road, (iii) on the south-west side at its junction with Druce Road, (iv) on the south-west side at its junction with Desenfans Road, (v) on the south-west side at its junction with Dekker Road. The order would in addition formalise existing waiting restrictions (where necessary) in these and adjoining streets. 3. For more information contact Michael Herd of the council's Highways parking design team by telephone on 020 7525 2131 or e-mail [email protected] 4. Copies of this notice, the proposed order, a statement of the council's reasons for making this order and plans may be found online at http://www.southwark.gov.uk/trafficorders or paper copies may be obtained from or viewed at Highways, Environment, 3rd floor hub 2, 160 Tooley Street, London SE1 2QH. Please telephone 020 7525 2005 for details. 5. Anyone wishing to object to or make any other representations regarding the proposal, may use this formhttps://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/borough-wide-junction-protection/ or send a statement in writing to: the Traffic orders officer, Highways, Southwark council, Environment, P.O. Box 64529, London SE1P 5LX or by e-mail to [email protected] quoting reference H/ND/TMO1617-012 by 22 December 2016. Please note that if you wish to object to this proposal you must state the grounds on which your objection is made. 6. When making an objection or representation, please be aware that this may be communicated to other people who may be affected. Information provided in response to this consultation, including in some circumstances personal information, may also be subject to publication or disclosure under the requirements of current access to information legislation. Dated 24 November 2016 NICKY COSTIN Parking and network management business unit manager Regulatory services