holymoly

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi first mate, > I would have been consulted via the DCC meetings > and papers. Hi First Mate I would think that the officer of the DCC could dig out any replies from Cllrs perhaps if nothing more concrete direct. She is very helpful. Support officer: Beverley Olamijulo, Constitutional Officer. Postal address: 160 Tooley Street London SE1 2QH Phone: 020 7525 7234 Email: [email protected]

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.

Melbourne Grove residents (South section) are very concerned as they see that part of the road used as a rat run. Vehicles are either avoiding Lordship Lane or using M Grove as a cut through to Lordship Lane. Residents are investigating traffic calming measures (full width speed bumps) or possibly a barrier (like Friern Road) between Tell Grove and Ashbourne Grove. Southwark has found that the majority of the vehicles are speeding and police data measured just under 15000 vehicles a week with a 85th percentile speed of 25mph. As has been said from the outset, changes to Townley will need to consider the whole area.

There is a thread recently started in The Lounge about a Southwark Planning Notice to move the newly Grade 2 listed plaque from the Dulwich Stocks and embed it in a house wall in one of the new SGS Smith houses to be developed there. The listing was given because the inscription itself, and its great state of preservation, are unusual. It was rediscovered in the 1970s and is a great piece of local history for Dulwich. The Dulwich Estate seems to be indifferent or at least no sign of action. Not sure about the Dulwich Society. Notice attached and you have until 17th June to respond: Reference 15/AP/1772 Application Received Fri 08 May 2015 Address THE WORKSHOP SITE, LAND BOUNDED BY GILKES PLACE, GILKES CRESCENT AND CALTON AVENUE TO THE REAR OF 25 DULWICH VILLAGE, LONDON, SE21 7BW Proposal Relocation of the Grade II listed stone plaque to be mounted in the garden wall of the 3-bed dwelling proposed as part of planning application ref:14/AP/3104. Status Registered as valid application To respond - follow this link [planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190]

Crazy. What is going on. I have objected via the link posted above. I have also written to the English Heritage national office in London: Email [email protected]. I encourage anyone else who is concerned to do the same. This remarkable piece of history has been incredibly well preserved and deserves some effort to keep it in place. Why do we need to restrict the space and visibility that it enjoys today. It should be maintained and kept as it was intended and not be just another 'brick in the wall' and a convenience to line the pockets of property developers. Where is the Dulwich Estate in this debate?

Drawing your attention to the fact that the Townley Road junction decision, as approved by Mark Williams has been made and is now subject to refer to call-in. Anyone know how to make a call-in and what this entails? See: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=5257 Summary Decision maker: Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning and Transport Decision status: Recommendations Approved (subject to call-in) Is Key decision?: Yes Is subject to call in?: Yes Purpose: Implementation of proposed strategic highway improvement scheme, subject to statutory procedures Decision: 1. That the proposals received a majority of support taking into account all consultation responses received during the consultation period be noted. 2. That the response in the local consultation area itself did not show a majority of respondents in favour be noted. 3. That levels of opposition and response rates were significantly reduced from the previous consultation be noted. 4. That all the schools in proximity to the junction are in support of the proposed junction improvement be noted. 5. That the unanimous support for the proposals of the Dulwich Community Council be noted. 6. That the implementation of the revised proposals subject to the necessary statutory procedures be approved. 7. That pre and post implementation monitoring of air/pollution levels on Townley Road be agreed. 8. That further amendments be considered that will alleviate queuing on Townley Road when the detailed design work is undertaken. Publication date: 02/04/2015 Date of decision: 01/04/2015 Date comes into force if not called in: 14/04/2015 Call-in deadline date: 13/04/2015

As posted above, there is one day for any final feedback to Mark Williams who has made a decision in principle to progress Option 8A unless any points are raised. 30th March deadline. I don't recall this being said at the DCC - but I will reply as I am still unhappy that the increased congestion for Townley and Calton will be pushed through. Direct your queries to [email protected] (cc [email protected];[email protected], [email protected]) @Woodwarde Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A group of local residents and res associations > sent this letter following the DCC 17th March > meeting. A similar message went to Mark Williams > at Southwark Council - the Cabinet Member who will > make the final decision. Note that Cllr Williams > has already APPROVED the recommendations (see > email below.) > From Mark Williams: > ___________ > Dear ........, > > Thank you for your email, and for the deputation > to council cabinet last week. Following a report > from officers which takes into account all > consultation to date on the Townley Road junction > scheme, and the views of Dulwich Community > Council. I have now approved the report > recommendations for this scheme. This is the first > step in the decision being formally taken, further > details and the supporting papers can be found > here: >http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50006298&Opt=0 > This decision is now open to public consultation > for five days, after which I will consider any > representations received. Once I have considered > these I will review the report again, if I decide > to proceed as set out in the report, there is then > a further period of five days for the council?s > Overview and Scrutiny Committee to call the > decision in for them to consider and make any > recommendations to me as the decision maker. > Following this the decision is then implementable. > > I note the points raised below and these will be > considered as a formal representation. If there > are any further points you wish to raise please > let me know by midnight on 30th March. > > Best wishes,

definitely says tarmac

I measured up as best I could in the dark, on my way home. Wulfhound - I used the wrong term. I meant the separation between pedestrians and cyclists was unclear. I have enlarged the consultation drawing and can see some sort of separation is drawn. If you are using the cycle lane on Townley then it looks like there is a road barrier that keeps you in the cycle lane and forces you into the area where the cyclists holding bay is. The use of armadillos keep you in the lane before that but there then seems to be a more solid structure that actually forces you in. You can see it if you enlarge the drawing. The pavements seem to get some narrowing - say from 3.1m (currently as just measured) to 2.6m at the tightest point, as mentioned in a post above. I don't know if this affects the people who walk that way now with prams, toddlers on scooters etc - and so if you are a peak time pedestrian there then make sure you are familiar with the proposed change. The rest of the space creation must come from the removal of the island and the road markings alongside it. And just to mention - that the paving stones go. If you enlarge the diagram you can see that the pavement area becomes tarmac - or at least tarmac is written over the drawing. That is a shame and a loss - just need to say that! Finally - help me on the Copemhagen turn. To make the 2-stage right turns, you seem to end up in front of the ASL with a competent and perhaps large group of cyclists ready to head straight into you. How does that work?

I am more confused following the discussions on Saturday. Nothing was presented and it was all left to individuals to try to have a meaningful discussion with one single planner - who was being bombarded with queries and could not cope. These changes are clearly experimental and the planner said just that. He described TfL as being 'all over' this junction and said with a wry grin that there was more to come and another 'consultation' about to land on Calton residents. You could have cut the air. I walked home past the junction this evening and I am struggling to see how the shared cycling and pavement area will work as it runs from Calton to East Dulwich Grove. It is not wide as it is right now - two people could walk together comfortably, or a mother with pram and young child alongside. How on earth this is expected to be a shared cycle and pedestrian way is hard to imagine. Well it's not hard to imagine actually, it's just not possible. Unless perhaps it's one way for pedestrians to make way for cyclists? This is going to be a huge problem for the morning walk and creates a very difficult situation for Townley and Calton Road who have had the brunt of the coach traffic for many years. I also listened to a conversation about the coaches and that the new pavements are designed to make turning for them very slow and awkward. The people discussing this said that the turn left from Townley onto East Dulwich Grove was at its tightest limit and that would throw the coaches out across the road and leave them no room for error and was not safe. They also said that there were many coaches taking this route at 4pm (sometimes 7 in a row) and asked how that had been taken into account. The planner said he felt that was all considered but did not know the specifics himself. I am going to measure the pavements tomorrow. I can't see how the shared space can work. If you walk that way with a buggy - will you post up what you think.

Villager wrote _____ That's good news for residents in Eynella who were not consulted on the Townley Road proposal but it could >>mean that the cyclists will have to cut through the Calton Ave/Dulwich Village/Turney Road junction. _____ The reconsultation document covers a larger development area than the first. You will see that it includes a segregated cycle line right to the junction with Carlton Avenue and assumes cyclists will cut off that corner. What this implies in terms of connecting it to any other cycling related development for Carlton is not clear. What it means in terms of reducing available pavement size is another consideration. Perhaps these are questions for the meeting on Saturday for the Carlton and Great Spillmans folks.

Has anyone looked at the statistical results tables. I can't work out how they can be correct. Some of the tables suggest reduced performance for two lane vs one lane traffic, for example on ED Grove westbound. That cannot be the case, because the traffic will move faster. What do you make of it?

I have taken a quick look. It is not clear what has informed the 'preferred' option (ie the one that is the diagram on the consultation document) versus the options 8 through 11. Can anyone 'guess' which option this is - clearly not 10 or 11 as they permit two lanes of traffic on Townley (left and right flows) when the proposed option is limited to a single lane. So we are automatically locking in the conditions for this to be a problematic junction and not allowing traffic to flow adequately - or so it looks at first glance. Any other views?

rch I have taken a look at this link and it is difficult to interpret for residential. What does PTAL stand for. Correct me, but the link seems to be agreement to go out to public consultation on these revised standards for parking on residential streets, new build, residential institutions, shops etc restricting space particularly for existing residential in favour of space for cycle parking. No details are provided about anticipated volume of demand for cycle parking or impacts for car parking restrictions. How did you interpret it and when does it go out to formal consultation? I think that we should start a thread here anyway so that people can start to associate with the issues before it is being consulted on. If it is like the one-hour parking consultation document which has masked (intentionally or not) some of the actual details of the changes, this will be a problem.

I am up for it as I think Southwark has no idea how much distrust they have created as a result of their lack of transparency. There remain unanswered questions about how Townley got pushed out to consultation without modelling in the first place. Had it not been for the enormous effort that has gone in to make Southwark take stock - this would already been in motion. I had hoped that Southwark would accept that a RHT ban would not work. Instead, Helen Hayes and Andy Simmons ducked the issue and a pilot was suggested. Even if the brakes went on now, who would believe that this was not temporary, only to come back in some other guise post the election? Nobody frankly, is that gullible. I think we want to know that this RHT ban can be put to bed for good and that it does not become part of electioneering agendas. I think Southwark also need to open the box on the 'secret' person at Southwark who made this decision (of course it is actually a collective of people) and what will be done to ensure this is not going to happen all over again. For example with the Cycling Strategy....

http://moderngov.southwarksites.com/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=18934 This is the development management planning application for the music school at JAGS 2011 - for a new music school to be built on the existing car park - that being displaced to a new park - yes, on Green Dale or the local roads - which are stated to be under utilised. That traffic has clearly not been modelled for the new proposed scheme. Take a look and see what is said in support by the Chair of the Dulwich Transport Society (although the Dulwich Society is said 'not' to have been consulted (how does that work?) and the ever present support of Dulwich Safe Routes. One of the councillors involved is - Peter John - now Leader of Southwark Council. South Camberwell Ward Councillors (notified on 4th November 2010: Cllr Peter John, Cllr Stephen Govier, Cllr Veronica Ward) There is significant local concern at the time about the impact on the traffic at the Green Dale junction and pushing traffic into Green Dale and its impact on cyclists. The targets for increasing cyclists are low - and no provision made for extra cycling bays. Not quite in line with the message coming through now. Skim read it if you have some time to squander.... It is what you might expect but sheds a light on support noted in the press for the 'Townley' safety improvements from the principals of JAGS. A commercial gain nested in a safety issue perhaps.

I asked via a Councillor and have the details of the distribution - so it is available. Probably incompetency. However, FOI requests are taken seriously by Councils - or should be. Most do and some excellent examples and policies are on the websites of other Councils. But not Southwark. Southwark are looking very disorganised and frankly, incompetent. Ask via a Councillor as Chris Mascord seems to respond to that source of enquiry.

Richard Tudor said; >>I suspect the articulate letter above will be destined for the waste bin. Southwark Officers have their own agenda. As a Council/public body, I assume that they will be required to keep all the documentation for a period of time - I believe it is 6 years currently. ZT - what do you think of the benefit of asking for assurances of that from the Monitoring Officer, on the basis that there is a high chance that it will need to be made public. Or in your experience, does the correspondence (email or written) have to be retained on file for a period? New Labour Leaflet distributed: Cover letter attached to this post - text from the return form is shown below. I attach the mailing that came through the door from the Village Ward Labour Action team today. Chatting in the village, I hear that Tessa Jowell was walking around there yesterday which I am told is not a usual thing for her to do. Did anyone else get one and are you going to reply? Another question for the Councillors is to understand how any replies to this mailing are to be taken into consideration. I assume that they are too late for the consultation process but it would be good to get clarity on that. It smacks of a secondary consultation when you read the text. The options provided are: I support the proposals for the junction I oppose the proposals for the junction I support the principle of the proposals for the junction, but oppose the proposed right hand turn ban from Townley Road into East Dulwich Grove I support the principle of the proposals for the junction, but I have the following concerns (space for comments)

Tessmo ? I agree with you that the Cycling Strategy 'hidden' agenda is driving this and that consultation is not visible to many of us. We are focussed on Townley and only unravelling the connection with the Cycling Strategy at this point. A friend of mine shared this with me from a resident on Eynella. They have not had the benefit of either the Townley consultation or a formal notification of the Cycling Strategy Consultation. I am sitting here thinking of the many letters/emails etc sent to Chris Mascord for the Townley consultation and we will never get to see them; they could be overshadowed by people answering from anywhere in fact ? there is nothing on the consultation that says how responses from residents will be considered in relation to those less affected. What if I had encouraged all my work colleagues, my running club, my relatives and friends in London to respond - even though they would not really be using the junction. How would Southwark have filtered them out or considered their relevance. So for what it is worth, here is a sample and indicative letter and I bet there are hundreds if not thousands like it to Southwark: The Chief Executive, Southwark Council, PO Box 64529, London SE1P 5LX Dear Chief Executive, NORTH-SOUTH CYCLE SUPERHIGHWAY. As you can see, I am a resident of Eynella Road. Some ten days before Christmas I was alerted to the Southwark Cycling Strategy by a member of the Friends of Dulwich Park which, like Eynella Road, would be significantly affected by the plans for a super cycle highway. Despite Southwark Council?s statement that they are engaging with their commuters and listening to their needs, no one connected with Southwark Council has had the courtesy to tell us what is afoot. We have not received a single letter from the Council and certainly no sign of the consultation supposedly conducted in November and December 2014. Having now read the Southwark paper on its proposed Cycling Strategy, it seems clear that no-one involved in the planning, including Councillor Mark Williams and his team, have, as yet, given any detailed consideration to the position of users and residents in the area most closely affected. The Cycling Strategy questionnaire, for the few fortunate enough to have found it and have the means to read it on line, does not meet the questions that we would like to ask. Comments, for example, that ?On residential streets, traffic will be heavily calmed or designed out? (whatever that may mean) are hardly encouraging. It is not clear whether the local councillors in Village and East Dulwich wards have been involved in informing and sounding out local residents but I hope they will take note of our concerns before the Council, as it clearly expects to do, rubber stamps the new strategy in March. The current protest about plans for the Townley Road junction with Greendale and East Dulwich Grove is a good illustration of the problems that arise when the planners press ahead paying little heed to local opinion or those who use the crossing almost every day. Dulwich Park The proposal to route a dedicated cycle highway through Dulwich Park raises significant concerns which will be articulated by the Friends of Dulwich Park. I looked, without success, for any estimate of the demand for such a cycle path. What is the assessment of the number of cyclists likely to use this route at various times of the day on weekdays and at weekends? Where are they supposed to be heading? Very large sums of money have been spent on the park in recent years to provide a safe and attractive environment for mothers and babies, mothers and toddlers, young children, teenagers as well as adults and the elderly. It is not clear what will be gained by driving a super highway across the park: an aggressive hoard of cyclists could well increase the threat to the safety of other park users (on foot as well as young cyclists) both in the park and as they approach the Court Lane Gate along Eynella Road. It is not clear whether the cycle highway will be open after dark? If it is to operate outside park opening hours, how will it be lit to avoid light pollution, and who will pay the additional running costs and ensure that vandals do not enter the park during the hours of darkness? Eynella Road There are 25 housing units in Eynella Road and the road is also used for parking during working hours by staff from the Library, Lloyds Bank and other commercial enterprises around the Lordship Lane/Eynella Road junction. These provide valued services for a wide area and attract customers on foot, by public transport and by car. It is usually very difficult for residents to find parking spaces by day and often also in the evening. Parking on both sides of the road is essential for family and professional (e.g. doctors) reasons and there is no feasible alternative: there is nowhere else to go. It is difficult therefore to see how a cycle highway can be fitted into the narrow space available without exercising draconian unilateral powers and severely disadvantaging those who live and work here. Journeys with very young children, transport to more distant schools, deliveries of goods and major shopping, family visitors, older residents (age was ignored in the survey) cannot be carried out by cycle. Furthermore for nearly100 years householders have been able to park on both sides of the road and residents have resisted any attempt to alter the character of the road (see for example the 1906 Southwark archive photograph of the road) by opposing drives for off-street parking which would endanger the many school children walking daily down Eynella Road to the Court Lane gate of the park. Eynella Road also provides an essential link to adjacent roads which are likely to suffer in the event of changes to the traffic flow. Certainly diverting traffic towards the Dulwich Village/Court lane junction would create a major hazard. Further the crossroads at the Library/Plough are already slow to negotiate in rush hour and will not be improved by giving cyclists absolute priority at this junction or diverting other traffic with equally valid road-user rights. There is much of merit in the forward thinking but the planners must explain to local residents what they aim to do, listen to their views and recognise that many other users have rights as strong as the cycling community. Yours sincerely,

And from South London Press 24th Dec (A Turn for the Worse) http://www.southlondon-today.co.uk/news.cfm?id=19323&headline=A%20TURN%20FOR%20THE%20WORSE, it seems that that Councillor Mark Williams is indeed fixed in his views and that the man's NOT for turning :-). So perhaps he is saying that the decision has been made regardless of the Consultation. Why is that when there are other preferred alternatives? "Councillor Mark Williams, Southwark's cabinet member for regeneration, planning and transport, said: "It is vital that we bring forward safety improvements for this junction that sits between two schools. To create the safe space and enough time for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists, our proposals include removing the right turn at Townley Road. "We want to hear what local residents, businesses and parents think about these proposals to improve safety at this junction. "The 'no right turn' measure is an integral part of making the proposals work. "We will review all the responses before making a final decision early next year." East Dulwich ward councillor James Barber said: "If motorists can't take the most direct route, they will go elsewhere and be on the streets for longer and that will make roads more dangerous than they are now. "Improvements to this junction are long overdue, but it is unnecessary to ban this turn. These proposals will not carry public support. All of the other changes are fantastic."

To extend or not to extend the consultation deadline.... that is the question. >>I've just had confirmation that the consultation has been extended to the 19 December due to popular and local councillor demand. -------------------- >> Regards [email protected] It is unclear how this information would be communicated to respondents but the 'extension' has not been notified to the Southwark consultation website. It is an extension simply in line with 'existing practice' and no concession to the voice of local concern. ____________________________________ Dear Dulwich Community Councillors, The official consultation deadline on the Townley Road junction proposals is 12th December. We would normally accept responses for up to a week later. Therefore I am happy to say that the consultation is extended to 19th, this would mean that there has been a full 28 day consultation period. Please feel free to let residents know. The reality is that responses received after this point are not ignored, but would be collated separately. There is already a substantial postbag which suggests there is no lack of awareness of the scheme in the community, and if we were to extend further it would have to cover whole of Christmas and 1st week of new year. This would leave us too much to do to prepare report for CC on 28 Jan We have a range of earlier feasibility studies which we will make available on the web site imminently. Regards Des Waters Head of Public Realm

It is disappointing that DulwichSaferRoutes is advocating the current proposal in full and not looking for a consultation that will actually improve it for everyone - pedestrians, cyclists, public transport users, residents etc alike. These plans will not make things safer, deter or divert rat-running car journeys nor deter local car journeys. Our local streets are used by locals - children on bikes AND walking to school, because it is considered 'safer' than many other local routes. How does the increased traffic this proposal will create make things safer. DulwichSaferRoutes will get better support for a safer route for all if they are open to consultation with other groups who know the area well. The current proposal as drafted will make things worse. See DSR position at: http://dulwichsaferoutes.blogspot.co.uk/