holymoly

@Legalien. Thanks for flagging. It is hard to tell if any new conditions have been included here. I don't tend to use the parking bays but notice on page 12 that there are different parking charges for diesel vs other cars. I wonder on what grounds given ULEZ covers the entry into the zone for diesel cars. Hard to tie this to emissions when a car is parked up. Is this differential parking new and just buried in here?

@Legalalien. FOI info very interesting, txs. I see there are quite a few requests to Southwark that are a year old and not answered? How can Southwark avoid responding. One year and no reply?

Does this mean that Helen Hayes and Councillors has taken a side on this matter? I presume that there is some risk to Council and others if this method does not pass legal and equality challenges

very helpful - health practices, traders, residents' associations, sports associations. not just the random few objecting

SlartiB. thanks for the epetition link. Signed. Does this get debated at Council?

It is bad everywhere because the main closures in Phase 1 have made it so. Phase 2 build on these and have exacerbated them. But no escaping the fact that the Phase 1 closures in Dulwich Village, Melbourne Grove etc are a fundamental problem and need resolving. DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Traffic seems bad everywhere today so it can't be > a result of latest restrictions because they don't > run at weekends. > It's often bad at weekends anyway with all the > school sports events. > > Probably today Christmas shopping? Understandably > people still not using public transport. > > But if people are shopping locally (and hopefully > supporting small business) surely most people > don't need to drive? Unless they are buying > something huge.

What has happened to a Phase 1 meeting? Or is Dulwich Village junction being buried. It was a single initiative with its own period for objection.

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Please write to them if you?re in favour of the > closures (partly/fully) so they don?t just get the > wrong idea that a highly vocal and overlapping > group of people with multiple axes to grind are > necessarily the majority. And please write if you support a better way that achieves the goals and yet does not partition us East/West Dulwich. Too many historical examples of the social failure of that approach .....

slarti b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > northernmonkey Wrote: > >some people give focus to community roles and i'd > imagine statistically they're more likely to > participate in a number of things throughout the > community. Its not a massive conspiracy! > > Maybe not an active conspiracy but what I see is a > small number of local(?) activists create > overlapping groups, Clean Air Dulwich, Southwark > Cyclists, Mums for Lungs, Safe Routes to Schools. > Dul Soc Traffic & Environment C'ttee etc. These > activists claim to represent "local community" > and are engaged by local councillors and treated > as key stakeholders by the council who are happy > to accept these groups at face value and dismiss > or ignore the concerns of their own constituents > and Resident's Associations without questioning > whose these activists represent. > > At the meeting Katy Savage of Clean air for > Dulwich (Facebook group liked by 79 people, no > info where they are from) was happy to > condescendingly dismiss the 2,700 person petition > to reverse closures without mentioning that the > petition to keep the closures had received a > massive... 51 supporters. > http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgEPetitionListD > isplay.aspx?bcr=1 . The narrative she is trying > to put over is that objectors to these road > closures, which are causing such disruption and > pollution to roads such as Lordship Lane and EDG, > are a vocal minority; in reality it is the > supporter and proponents of these these poorly > thought through schemes that are the minority. > > One of Ms Savage's arguments was that there was no > verification where the respondents on the petition > lived - if true, that is clearly a failure by > Southwark council. However, the DV junction > closure has always been justified by the > councillors as the outcome of the OHS phase 2 > consultation. That exercise had about 200 > respondents, mainly on line, and the council has > refused to say where they lived. According to > her views that consultation was therefore > meaningless. > > Note that OneDulwich who , with over 1,700 > supporters is very open about where those > supporters live see > https://www.onedulwich.uk/supporters. It is > unfortunate that the local councillors are doing > all they can to misrepresent the views and > proposals of those groups who represent a > significant number of local residents and have put > in huge amounts of effort to analyse the situation > and suggest reasonable compromises. > > edited to make clear that the OneDulwich web site > shows supporters by postcode district rather than > actual address. SlartiB - a great post and reminder to see how our Councillors take seriously their responsibilities for evidence based proposals and inclusive representation from the community they were elected to represent. Our Ward Cllrs seem to be failing the community that elected them. Their Twitter accounts highlight the bias of their representation. Conundrum for them but equally for those of us electing them. I have lost confidence in Dulwich Ward Cllrs to represent our views and show how these can be progressed alongside environmental goals. I have no single conversation that I can highlight that shows me they have a broad interest and social understanding. How did we elect them I ask myself?

Submit questions anyway and note that the Council meeting has not been well publicised and that questions should be permitted.

There is a Council meeting this coming week and the Council will debate the epetition against the DV closures. The meeting will be online/virtual and starts at 4pm on the 20th Oct: You can ask to join the hearing of the epetition objecting to the Dulwich Village closures by emailing [email protected] and asking to join the Council hearing 20th Oct starting 4pm. You can read the agenda for this meeting on the following web link: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=302&MId=6663&Ver=4

very clear FairGirl. Deserves an honest response but our Cllrs reluctant to admit any failure or bias...

I hear that Hillsboro' Rd is next closure coming up soon - probably a school street. that'll improve matters .....

Ahh Mr Edwards ... latest sighting

Southwark presentation this morning clarified that all the funding for this work is coming from TfL and not from Southwark. So as we have seen before, TfL as funding body will want specific outcomes - unclear what the range of specific outcomes will be. But for sure they will not want to permit any thing that impacts buses. This is consultation on Phase 3 - responses to be in by 29th March. Form at: www.southwark.gov.uk/ohs-dulwich The specifics of what is proposed are still contradictory on Southwark's own materials and so it was not possible to get informed answers to the access for residents for Area B and other Areas. We are described as ?Permit Holders?. Andy Simmons stated that residents would get permission to access. He was not clear whether all residents in areas A, B and C get access to all areas or just their own. When specifically asked, he stated that Teachers would not be given permits. Not sure that this is correct as they would need them to get in to park in Alleyns, surely? He also stated that Plumbers, carers etc would be permitted but under some sort of yet to be clarified arrangement. No clarity has been given on whether these Permits are chargeable for residents and/or for others accessing. He also mentioned that that they wish to offer CPZ in these areas as well ? so this all sounds chargeable access driven. See the diagram on the Consultation link above and I am now referring to that and another A4 document available today that had more detail. 1. Junction East Dulwich Grove and Townley Road Time restrictions here are proposed to be lengthy. 7-10am and 3-7pm with no turn into Townley from either direction, except cyclists. Not clear where the school buses will stop. Outside these hours, access is for Residents and other ?permit holders? only. Not clear who this covers ? whether all area A,B,C residents and which other categories of user. 2. Townley Road There is access for residents (Areas not specified) and other permit holders who can exit onto EDG during the restricted hours. The controls at Lordship Lane junction are not specified as restricted hours but permit residents in. They will permit non-permit holders in but these user cannot exit onto EDG and would have to go back out via Lordship Lane or Court lane. 3. Roundabout at Burbage Road and Dulwich Village This is not shown on the consultation map but it is intended for there to be two cameras on the Dulwich Village entry and Burbage Rd entry from this roundabout, that will prevent College Rd and Gallery Rd traffic using those routes. Residents/Permit holders will be allowed to go through. Other users will have to return to the South Circ. The major access restriction at Dulwich Village blocks access to all.

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Melihoople Wrote: > ------------------------------------------------- > > > > I am deeply concerned by the lack of public > > transport & these plans. > > Public transport runs as normal. P4 still goes > through the village; 37 can still get from Goose > Green up ED Grove and past ND station; the 176, > 185 etc are unaffected on LL and the 12 can still > wind its tortuous way through the back streets of > Peckham to the library. > > The council don't run the buses. They will however > consider and accommodate bus routes in their road > plans. Also if there's less traffic overall, bus > times become much more reliable. You miss the point. The closure stops necessary access across Dulwich, worsening the limited public transport (buses) that currently exist. The route across Dulwich would be closed. The traffic through Dulwich Village, South Circ and Lordship Lane would become unworkable, the existing buses impacted and more air pollution caused. Southwark have already been refused by TfL to make changes to the Barry rd waiting point for buses so this is the hair brained counter scheme. The scheme is pure madness along the lines of the Loughborough Junction debacle.

Vehicular traffic includes mobility scooters, waste disposal, post office, deliveries - many vital services. Trips to swimming, shops etc just as necessary for those who are reliant on modes of transport in specific circumstances. Southwark LBC and TfL are well aware that there are no regular public transport mechanisms east to west Dulwich and limited north to South. Southwark LBC 'should' but do not have holistic plans to create meaningful change. Their plans are politically motivated, impact the 'many' Dulwich residents and benefit the few. Shame on them.

and these proposals will exacerbate that

Going to the meeting tomorrow to say NO. Who on earth thought this up? I do not want to be 'kettled in' and the extent of the proposal is barmy. This causes traffic to divert via Court Lane, passing through Dovercourt and Beauval and creating a quiet parking spot for the private schools. It will cause serious concerns for access for emergency services in general. What are Southwark thinking? Or don't they think......

Xmas present for Cllr Wingfield perhaps? http://www.banksytshirts.net/mens/tshirts/banksyyellowlinesflower.html Just registered our objections - and it is easy to fill in but not clear how input will be handled. So we decided it is best to name all the roads that form the arms of the junctions that we are concerned about. Messy compared to a single junction consultation. Why have they done it this way?

Extensive proposed double yellow lines across 126 locations. Full details under agenda item 17 at http://tinyurl.com/je2t7eo EAST DULWICH Ward Double yellow line are being proposed at 34 junctions Location BLACKWATER STREET & MELBOURNE GROVE; CRYSTAL PALACE ROAD & HEBER ROAD BLACKWATER STREET & BASSANO STREET; CRYSTAL PALACE ROAD & SILVESTER ROAD LYTCOTT GROVE & MELBORUNE GROVE; CRYSTAL PALACE ROAD & JENNINGS ROAD LANDCROFT ROAD & HEBER ROAD; CYRENA ROAD & HEBER ROAD LANDCROFT ROAD & PELLATT ROAD; CYRENA ROAD & CYRENA ROAD LANDCROFT ROAD & JENNINGS ROAD; CYRENA ROAD & PELLATT ROAD LANDCROFT ROAD & SILVESTER ROAD; CYRENA ROAD & SILVESTER ROAD LANDCROFT ROAD & CRYSTAL PALACE ROAD; CYRENA ROAD & SILVESTER ROAD LANDCROFT ROAD & THOMPSON ROAD; CYRENA ROAD & PELLATT ROAD LANDCROFT ROAD & GOODRICH ROAD; BARRY ROAD & SILVESTER ROAD LANDELLS ROAD & GOODRICH ROAD; CREBOR STREET & UPLAND ROAD LANDELLS ROAD & SILVESTER ROAD CRYSTAL PALACE ROAD & RODWELL ROAD GOODRICH ROAD & FRIERN ROAD; CRYSTAL PALACE ROAD & PELLATT ROAD GOODRICH ROAD & CRYSTAL PALACE ROAD; TELL GROVE & MELBOURNE GROVE GOODRICH ROAD & UPLAND ROAD GOODRICH ROAD & DUNSTANS ROAD ETHEROW STREET & NORCROFT GARDENS DUNSTANS ROAD & CREBOR STREET CRYSTAL PALACE ROAD & THOMPSON ROAD CRYSTAL PALACE ROAD & GOODRICH ROAD DULWICH Ward - Double yellow line are being proposed at 37 junctions Location BOXALL ROAD & DULWICH VILLAGE; DRUCE ROAD & WOODWARDE ROAD BURBAGE ROAD & GALLERY ROAD; DRUCE ROAD & COURT LANE BURBAGE ROAD & COLLEGE ROAD; DULWICH VILLAGE & BOXALL ROAD CALTON AVENUE & COURT LANE; DULWICH VILLAGE & AYSGARTH ROAD CALTON AVENUE & DULWICH VILLAGE; HILLSBORO ROAD & THORNCOMBE ROAD CALTON AVENUE & CALTON AVENUE; BEAUVAL ROAD & MILO ROAD CALTON AVENUE & TOWNLEY ROAD; AYSGARTH ROAD & TURNEY ROAD CALTON AVENUE & GILKES CRESCENT; COURT LANE & COURT LANE GARDENS CALTON AVENUE & DULWICH VILLAGE; COURT LANE & COURT LANE GARDENS LORDSHIP LANE & COURT LANE; COLWELL ROAD & PLAYFIELD CRESCENT FRANK DIXON WAY & COLLEGE ROAD; COLWELL ROAD & MELBOURNE GROVE GALLERY ROAD & DULWICH VILLAGE; LYTCOTT GROVE & MELBOURNE GROVE GLENGARRY ROAD & TARBERT ROAD; PICKWICK ROAD & TURNEY ROAD EASTLANDS CRESCENT & COURT LANE; THORNCOMBE ROAD &TROSSACHS ROAD EASTLANDS CRESCENT & DOVERCOURT ROAD; THORNCOMBE ROAD & TARBERT ROAD DEKKER ROAD & COURT LANE; ROSEWAY & TURNEY ROAD DEKKER ROAD & WOODWARDE ROAD; ROSEWAY & TURNEY ROAD DESENFANS ROAD & WOODWARDE ROAD DESENFANS ROAD & COURT LANE DOVERCOURT ROAD & WOODWARDE ROAD COLLEGE Ward Double yellow line are being proposed at 55 junctions. Location BOWEN DRIVE & BOWEN DRIVE; ILDERSLY GROVE & PARK HALL ROAD BOWEN DRIVE & BOWEN DRIVE; BELVOIR ROAD & BELVOIR ROAD BOWEN DRIVE & BOWEN DRIVE; BELVOIR ROAD & UNDERHILL ROAD LYMER AVENUE & DULWICH WOOD PARK ; ACACIA GROVE & ALLEYN PARK KINGSWOOD DRIVE & KINGSWOOD DRIVE; ALLEYN CRESCENT & ALLEYN ROAD KINGSWOOD DRIVE & KINGSWOOD DRIVE; ALLEYN PARK & ALLEYN PARK LANGTON RISE & UNDERHILL ROAD ; ALLEYN PARK & ALLEYN PARK LORDSHIP LANE & LORDSHIP LANE ; ALLEYN PARK & ALLEYN PARK FARQUHAR ROAD & DULWICH WOOD PARK; CRESCENT WOOD ROAD & SYDENHAM HILL FARQUHAR ROAD & TYLNEY AVENUE ; CRESCENT WOOD ROAD & CRESCENT WOOD ROAD FARQUHAR ROAD & FARQUHAR ROAD ; CRESCENT WOOD ROAD & CRESCENT WOOD ROAD FARQUHAR ROAD & FARQUHAR ROAD ; CROUCHMANS CLOSE & SYDENHAM HILL FARQUHAR ROAD & FARQUHAR ROAD ; CRYSTAL PALACE PARADE & CRYSTAL PALACE PARADE FARQUHAR ROAD & FARQUHAR ROAD ; COLLEGE ROAD & COLLEGE ROAD FOUNTAIN DRIVE & FOUNTAIN DRIVE ; SEELEY DRIVE & SEELEY DRIVE DULWICH WOOD PARK & A2199 ; SEELEY DRIVE & SEELEY DRIVE DULWICH WOOD PARK & BAIRD GARDENS; SYDENHAM HILL & SYDENHAM HILL DULWICH WOOD AVENUE & DULWICH WOOD AVENUE; SYDENHAM HILL & WOODSYRE DULWICH WOOD AVENUE & DULWICH WOOD AVENUE; SYDENHAM HILL & SYDENHAM HILL DULWICH WOOD AVENUE & DULWICH WOOD AVENUE; SYDENHAM HILL & SYDENHAM HILL DULWICH WOOD PARK & COLLEGE ROAD; SYDENHAM HILL & SYDENHAM HILL A2199 & A2199; OVERHILL ROAD & UNDERHILL ROAD A2199 & CROXTED ROAD; PARK HALL ROAD & PARK HALL ROAD A2199 & A2199; MELFORD ROAD & MELFORD ROAD A2199 & CRYSTAL PALACE PARADE; MELFORD ROAD & MELFORD ROAD A2199 & CRYSTAL PALACE PARADE; BOWLEY LANE & BOWLEY LANE JASPER PASSAGE & JASPER ROAD; UNDERHILL ROAD & UNDERHILL ROAD

Ed-history there's more. In addition to the last post with the Interim Stage 3 brief doument attached. Success. I have compressed the PDF file and the full stage 1&2 audit report is attached with this post. So all 3 douments are visible across the thread: 1. Original report for stage 1&2 2. Southwark's response to the stage 1&2 audit 3. The brief for the interim stage 3 audit. that is as much as I can locate across various pieces of correspondence.

maxwelland and ed-history - this may help: Extract from email to Councillors and local residents from Southwark Public Realm Wed, 9 Sep 2015 Maxwelland: This refers to SCOOT UTC - which links the junction operation to others - I understand the ED and Red Post Hill one. This may be causing the change and you could enquire of Southwark public realm. ed-history: I can see that the earlier email to Councillors that had the stage 1/2 audit, also had the brief for the stage 3 interim safety audit. I have been able to attach it here. It does not specify who is conducting this however and how independent of Aecom it will be or whether there is a 'chinese wall' between various divisions of Aecom (design and construction vs audit). The Stage 1/2 Audit attached earlier was conducted by Aecom as you can see. Extract: ...................... I have this morning received further clarification on the delay to the cycle facilities from TfL. There had previously been some confusion about whether ?low-level? cycle signals were permitted to be installed at this junction without a separate Department for Transport authorisation. TfL have now clarified that they are permitted. Please bear in mind that TfL are responsible for all traffic signals in London. Recently, a signalised crossing with ?early release? for cyclists and low level signals has been installed at Cambridge Heath in Tower Hamlets. This is the first use in the UK and is being monitored for a period of 8 weeks (up to 13 October) by TfL. Until this trial is concluded and assessed, TfL will not install low level signals unless they are on a fully segregated track or on the same pole as a primary traffic signal whereby the move from green to amber to red and vice versa in synchronisation with the full height traffic signal above. This is the current set up at Townley Road. After the trial is concluded on 13 October, TfL need 2 weeks to analyse data collected. Assuming that the trial is favourable, this will allow the early release feature to be switched on shortly after 27 October. No further authorisation is required to install the ?cycle gate? features although TfL are currently recommending a two-stage approach whereby the early release is turned on first and then the cycle gates are constructed and turned on at a slightly later date. I am sorry about this delay, originally we had hoped that Townley Road would be the first site for low level early release however TfL chose Cambridge Heath, not least I suspect because this site was on their own highway network where they are in more direct control. This decision was outside of our control. Lastly, the junction will shortly be upgraded to ?SCOOT UTC? operation. This is likely in the next few weeks although I do not have a firm date from TfL. This will improve the operation of the junction as it will be linked to other nearby junctions improving capacity and efficiency. There is a small amount of additional technical work required by TfL before this can happen. I trust this helps explain the current issues. ----------------------

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi slarti b, > I'm pretty sure one was shown to me but I didn't > keep a copy. My family can only stand so many > council documents around the house! > James - see email sent to you and all Councillors From: R...., I Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 12:39 PM For other Forum members, I attach the Southwark response to the Stage 1/2 Audit. The audit itself is too large to load here but it is included in the email that was sent out to Councillors. The document attached here includes the issues that the Audit identified and Southwark's response to those issues. A stage 3 audit is due on works completion but because they are not complete, an independent interim report has been produced as noted above but it has not yet been released to Councillors. A Village Cllr asked Southwark two weeks ago for this to be sent out to residents and is chasing early release.

Kate Hoey ‏@KateHoeyMP Oct 1 Inundated with e mails re closure of Wandsworth road north bound for 5 weeks @LambethSE @TfLTrafficNews Developers first residents last Why? 7 retweets 8 favorites Reply Retweet 7 Favorite 8 More Also much resent at: ##http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2015/09/coldharbour-lane-gridlock-as-the-loughborough-junction-closure-experiment-goes-pear-shaped/