mockingbird

Deventer Crescent off Greendale. How will residents get in and out when Greendale becomes a school street?

We have been privileged to have this park so widely used and accessible to all. It is sad to think that some people might have to choose between the cost of parking and, for example, buying their children an ice cream. A stark example but the point is that for some people who travel to use the park, this can be another blow to their liberty and enjoyment.

I am not intending to start a separate thread here but pointing out for anyone not aware, that you need to be informed about extensive proposed rode closures that have a dramatic impact on access from East Dulwich to the Village and from College and Gallery Road through the Village. Refer to the Forum thread at Our Healthy Streets Dulwich Phase 3 - and please comment there, not here! Later posts refer to the first Council meeting for Phase 3 that took place 8th Feb. 2 more to come - dates below for your diary. Don't be caught unaware on this, it is a major road adjustment. Consultation documents at https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/roadworks-and-highway-improvements/street-improvements/our-healthy-streets-dulwich Next public meetings on: Presentation and Workshop - Herne Hill Baptist Church From 29 Feb 2020 at 09:00 to 29 Feb 2020 at 12:30 Presentation and Workshop - JAGS From 4 Mar 2020 at 18:30 to 4 Mar 2020 at 21:00

I recommend that anyone going to the next meetings takes a look at the limited data modelling provided so far. Most of what is expressed on the Council consultation feedback documents and supporting documents is not clear on that. Traffic: We should request I suggest, the LinSig documents and other modelling that has been done for traffic flows with dates etc to be loaded on the Consultation website so that these can be looked at - not just the summaries that Southwark has chosen to present. Air quality The council presenter said yesterday that these are limited samples on street because the cost of detailed air quality monitoring is prohibitive (mentioned Google car and ?500k running cost). Perhaps Google will let us have this data so that we can see it in context. You can see the summary of the earlier consultations and the 'supporting' evidence at this link: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/roadworks-and-highway-improvements/street-improvements/our-healthy-streets-dulwich Worth a look at the final pages of the Summary of Feedback document. Understandable that Mums for Lungs and Clean Air for Dulwich have sent in their organisation's views but the Dulwich Society commenting on our behalf I do find unacceptable. I pay my subs but I certainly do not give them permission to represent me. Does Southwark treat them as a consultee? The Dulwich Society, 12 December Our Healthy Streets: Dulwich The Dulwich Society responds as below to the consultation on phase 2. The Society has a membership of over 1,100 households, mainly in Dulwich and in the area affected by the potential solutions. The Society has been active in encouraging its members to engage with the issues. While the Society has not carried out a systematic survey of its members? views, it appears clear that the membership is in favour of radical solutions to the problems of: ? traffic generated air pollution; ? traffic congestion due to an excessive volume of vehicles using the roads and junctions; ? through traffic from outside the area in Dulwich Village and elsewhere; ? road safety, especially for pupils getting to and from school; ? inefficient use of the limited amount of car parking, partly because of all-day parking by commuters using the railway stations; ? general impact on the public realm from domination by motor vehicles. I attach a list of local stakeholders which we think the Council should consult. We can help you with contacts (subject to their approval). The Society believes that measures such as the first seven listed in the consultation leaflet would have the potential to solve these problems. The Society therefore supports the proposals you are working on.

Serena2012 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Excellent post Mockingbird. I agree wholeheartedly > with your comments. The lack of a trial is > particularly concerning, because although there > was some acknowledgment from the council that they > could look to make tweaks once any zone was in > place, there is a real risk that it will be very > difficult to make wholesale changes once the horse > has bolted, even in circumstances where the > unintended consequences are grave. Thank you - A pilot is essential in my view

sand12 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The presentation today at Alleyn?s was > informative. I wasn?t able to stay for the QA > afterward. The representatives from the council > were doing their best to clarify and present the > options under consideration. Some folks were eager > to voice their objections, but it was unclear if > they had taken enough time to listen or read > through the documentation beforehand. > > We have to address this issue collectively. > Pollution and congestion are a health hazard for > all- young/old, pedestrians, cyclists, and > drivers. The area was not built to accommodate the > level of thru traffic, commuters who park/ride, > and the increase in pupil numbers at the private > and state schools, the rise in household > deliveries/couriers, or AI which redirects traffic > to routes which shorten the journey, but cause > harm to the local area. We need to address these > issues collectively and with empathy. There are > many reasons why each of us has cause to use a > particular mode of transport, or not. We should > listen to what those reasons are as well as share > how those choices impact on others. Some measures > will need to be trialed and revisited, but > inaction is causing irreparable physical harm. Yes we need to understand and take action. However the presentation was not very clear in fact, many questions went unanswered about the timing and scope of past traffic and air monitoring and no honest conversation to admit any limitations. The Council representative was clear to note that they wanted to understand 'unintended' consequences - but none were put forward as considered already by Council. In the very limited time allowed for the breakout sessions after the 3 hour meeting, the Officers indicated there is no intention to allow for a pilot and plan to move straight to construction and post build monitoring. Personally I consider that this approach is not acceptable and commits considerable spend before the scheme is properly tested and unintended consequences understood. I would be prepared to work with a trial but not straight to construction for such a major set of works. I think it is unreasonable for our Council to expect to be able to operate in this way with taxpayers' money. I encourage you to attend (and go prepared with questions) to one of the remaining two meetings. Perhaps ask for the extra material distributed in advance, so that you have time to look at it properly and can tailor your questions accordingly.

Good offer. The online consultation now shows it is closed.

Good offer because the online consultation now says it is closed.

wulfhound Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > As a pedestrian - there are simply too many > directions to look in at once. Yes, most > drivers/cyclists will see you and stop for zebra > crossings. "Most" is nowhere near good enough, > though. > The DV junction, whether supporting a Quietway or not, has to serve a very large number of pedestrians, particularly young children travelling to the adjacent schools. They are not an afterthought and they will want to and should be able to cross a carriageway in one go. In the longer term, it seems that an effective quietway-type cycling environment can only be fitted into places of such particular pedestrian demand like Dulwich, by a widespread use of shared space features. Southwark have made some moves in this direction already, with build outs and shared-level crossings (ie tables) particularly on ends of ordinary residential streets. But their proposal for DV junction has little or nothing of that. I support the efforts to look at this by commissioning a feasibility study with PJA and have contributed to the crowdfunding. I want to see just what is possible when delivery of the Southwark ?policy? of a Quietway is approached by an independent and balanced professional team. I hope they can inspire us.

James Southwark Council, as you know from the papers that you have referenced, are taking back powers of decision from the Dulwich Community Council. How do we get sight of that change (seems to be a closed circulation communication to Cllrs) and how do we make Dulwich people aware of how we can respond to this change to Southwark Council - ie Peter John as Leader or via our Cllrs?

Go there regularly. It is not the Dog or the Plough. But I am glad to have it on my doorstep. It is good; medium offering. And the staff are, in my experience, pleasant and efficient. Would have to go some to get a fab reputation.

sandyman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Maybe the Council has a joblot of yellow paint > they need to use. > > https://dfijamiesamman.wordpress.com/2010/11/03/do > uble-yellow-madness/double-yellow-small2/ Funny, tho perhaps equally useless!. It does demonstrate the point that 10m is guidance and that reality 'should' apply to circumstances.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 10m is a quiet 20mph street is a sufficient space > to park what 2 1/2 cars. I doubt many people would > think it dangerous to park within 10m. > > The argument give by the council is that 10m is > required to ensure adequate sight lines to reduce > crashes. But the crash data for the unction > proposed is close to zero. The guidance is for > junction that when written would likely have had > high speed limits than 20mph. > > It's a silly excessive proposal taking no account > of local circumstances or all council policies. > What's particularly sad is that it's been > implemented across the borough and it's only > because Dulwich residents are more vocal that > we've this temporary reprieve. James agree. The Highway Code is guidance and is reinforced with legal remedies as appropriate. The Dbl Yellow line proposal would have bypassed scrutiny and is wrong on many levels. As presented in the agenda docs to DCC, the 'bulk' proposal (for those that take time to read it) does propose 7.5m rather than 10m. But it is still the 'sledgehammer' to crack a nut, which our MP Helen Hayes coined clearly on Tues eve in her feedback to Southwark. For those unfamiliar with interpretation and common practice for the application of the Highway Code, lengths under 10m are permitted and 'any' length of double line under 10m that provides adequate clearance of the junction should be considered. It is a case by case judgement. As Matt Hill (Southwark Public Realm) said on Tues eve at the DCC, this was a cost effective and convenient way for 'Southwark' to drive through generic Southwark policy - with no health check as to its effectiveness at individual junctions or the totality of impact. Come on Southwark, really?? Budget constraints on consultation costs, time to review etc, yes, we get that in a heartbeat. Blinkered and robotic policy taken straight to implementation without due consideration of local impacts, or transparency - then you are out of bounds. Who needs or wants a Council that operates like this? James - you are on message and I hope that other Councillors also stand up for sensible and warranted measures and stop the erosion of our environment and community with such OTT proposals for double yellow lines. Charlie - also thank you to you. You seem to be advocating common sense and not policy by rote.

I understand that during the summer build at Townley, one of the workman spoke to residents about the challenges of the design and commented that some of the designers had been sacked. Is this what you mean?

How has this person been involved with Townley? Or is it Aecom. I'm confused but curious..............

Even though it was part of Londis, Shepherd's did not feel like a chain - although agree with views that its range of goods were hit and miss. I rarely used it - odd pint of milk and bread, that sort of thing. The deli counter was good when I have used it. But how this will work as a Sainsburys Local. It seems far too small compared with any Local that I have been in. I guess that once Martin's has been put out of business then they can knock through? And although I am biting my tongue while I say this, do, do insist that this store fits into the feel of the Village. Please avoid ending up with that disgusting brown and orange logo. The brown is an unpleasant choice, the orange too in your face and the combination unfathomable. If nothing else - that would be a god send. I'm no great eye for design I have to say, but that colour combo certainly manages to look an eyesore anywhere, although marginally better than Poundland. Well maybe not. On reflection, wouldn't they look great sitting next to each other?

Why the mention of Ian Batcock. I can't trace the influence to Townley.

Charlie Smith Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I would not want anyone to get the wrong .......................................> > Regards > > Councillor Charlie Smith > Labour Member East Dulwich Ward Really good to have another Councillor voice and interest. Welcome Charlie, we need you.

I was just about to request that also.

hopskip Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jenny1 Wrote > -------------------------------------------------- > > Hi James > > Thank you for your appreciation of our efforts. You asked if we - as a group - would like to suggest Terms of Reference. We don't seek to go beyond the wording of our petition. Our main concern is that a process be undertaken that is led by traffic engineers, consults fully with all affected residents and does not start with any preconceptions. Hence the wording we asked people to sign up to. > > I'm no expert on how such a thing would be carried out and I'm sure Southwark engineers could advise on the best approach. But it's not hard to imagine an information gathering exercise led by the highways department inviting input from concerned residents. I would like to emphasise something which I said a while ago on this thread. I don't believe there's any great 'real' conflict in this situation. Iwould imagine we all sympathise fully with the aims of the Melbourne Traffic Action group in wishing to improve traffic conditions on Melbourne Grove. It just felt necessary to go through a process to confirm that this would be done in a way that was led by highway engineers, informed by the facts and which took into account the needs of all affected residents. > Good post, well said and seems to reflect the voice of many posting here who wish for something that supports the full range of issues. I hope that many of the Councillors read it, understand it and help create the springboard for it. > Good post.... Looking forward to supporting the deputation this evening and hearing a balanced review by Councillors. Any further signatures continue to be welcome and will contribute if you have not already signed: https://www.change.org/p/southwark-council-no-barrier-for-melbourne-grove

Here's the link to the online petition - still open for signatures https://www.change.org/p/southwark-council-no-barrier-for-melbourne-grove

so why has below any relevance. There is no mandate for the TOR to be defined by a single Cllr or any subset of residents. Totally irrelevant to the DCC debate yet to occur. Turn up to the Sept 9th Community Meeting to confront this appallingly narrow appreciation of East Dulwich communities by a self appointed and solitary Cllr voice. James Barber Wrote: - ------------------------------------------------------ > The original Melbourne Grove residents have > suggested a Terms of Reference for the feasibility > study: > > " > We would be delighted if the study could consider > ways of stopping our street being a rat-run > alternative to Lordship Lane and of keeping > vehicles to the 20mph speed limit. We don't > believe that increased signage and speed guns > alone can be effective enough, though we'd welcome > both. > > As our petition has shown, many of us are > interested in the idea of a barrier (as suggested > to us by councillors) so we'd be grateful if that > could be explored. > > We are also interested in understanding how > pinchpoints could work and where they might be > positioned. > > The junction with MG and East Dulwich Grove > continues to be overloaded at certain times of > day. We would be interested in how both a barrier > and a pinchpoint might impact on how that junction > functions. > > In addition, we would like the study to look in > detail at the knock-on effect of both of these > interventions. Our belief, based on other streets' > experiences, is that traffic would fall across > Melbourne Grove and the streets that come off it > (Ashbourne, Chesterfield etc), but we would like > to get better information on this with the help of > the study. We have no desire to simply push the > problem elsewhere. > "

tiddles Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was going to sign the petition, but as I am not > a resident of Melbourne Grove or the roads leading > off it, I wasn't sure if I was eligible or not? > I live in East Dulwich tho? > > > what do you think? You still have local knowledge and can sign

So. How is the junction on its first day of opening?

ZT posted: Please in future try to help us get a better service, not political swipes... Good post. Cllrs interested in self aggrandisement and political swiping serve only themselves.