mockingbird

Good photo of Aecom working away hard, in their 8-5 Mon-Sat committed schedule, as noted in Matt Hill's communication. Oh it was a day ago, so probably out of touch with reality.....

BNG How will cyclists use the road? Do they have to now use the narrowed highway merged with the cars?

What about the lady who was knocked down. Was this a result of the same traffic light issue?

A Cllr who is not using facts and information objectively in the various threads about a barrier on MG should be asked to abstain from the decisions for this matter in ED Ward. Possible?

Galileo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The debate in our house tonight: what is wrong > with a rat run? (btw I hereby declare an interest > given 'our house' is on the Northern section of > MG). > > Our conclusion: > > 1. roads are designed for an appropriate amount of > traffic - motorways, A-roads, B-roads and > residential roads parked up on both sides (as ours > is, and the Southern end of MG is) > > 2. the mentality of a proportion of rat run users > is that this is their "quickest route" which > "avoids traffic or delays" then if they encounter > residents using the residential road in a usual > manner, eg. loading, unloading, reverse parking > into an impossibly tight spot because a load of > rail commuters have parked the entire road up for > the whole day, having the door open whilst they > put a child into a car seat, they get frustrated > and impatient because their route is not as quick > as they had planned (and really, thanks for the > warning from the bloke who almost took my car door > off and me with it last week as he screamed round > the corner from EDG to MG North and then shouted > at me to "mind my door" ... I was putting a child > into a car seat at the time.) > .... etc and then on to discuss CPZ Galileo You point is understood but I don't see it helping this debate about a barrier. Many alternative measures could help if there is indeed a traffic calming issue. CPZ is an entirely different matter. Did you sign in support of a barrier?

Would work better all round I expect.

It could be afforded if the unnecessary ?10k CGS underspend was allocated to it rather than repeating an already current and clear traffic survey? Good idea?

Development at Townley progresses... slowly. Two weeks and school are back? Go and take a look at the much reduced left turn out of Townley onto ED Grove now that is is visible in the roadworks. It is easy to see how problematic this will be for all vehicles, particularly coaches.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Mockingbird, > 15% of those cars are going at excessive - or at > least that is the interpretation local police have > given to local residents. > > Hi P68, > Residents were........... I personally think > it's a good idea in theory but we haven't had a > study report back whether it would work or not or > a public consultation about it. Not sure how to respond to Councillor B's comments here. I don't feel they meet the test of objectivity. This has the potential to be a divisive community issue and needs to be dealt with by our Councillors based on facts and consideration of impacts and best outcome overall. We need to live together and don't want this to set people against each other. There may be a local pinch point issue at the top end of Melbourne Grove. We should work as a community to devise the best solution. This is unlikely to be barrier as it creates problems for others and for the local road network. It is also clear that this is not a speeding problem. Councillor B will have had the training that all Councillors get with regard to interpreting these reports. They are a standard format, I now understand. I have been told that Southwark officers also created an accompanying briefing to position this April 2015 met police traffic survey report and to advise Councillors that there are areas of higher concern and priority. I don't see the objectivity of a Councillor who states they are personally in favour of something and does not release relevant and factual information when that has been provided by the Council. The 85th percentile is a long standing measure for the met police, traffic engineers and council officers and I don't buy the anecdotal statements the local bobby 'reportedly said', presented in a vacuum. I'd be surprised to find a Councillor who operates this way. I assume that the opinion is just badly expressed.

James How do you read this Melbourne Traffic Study report? I am looking at the results page. Study took place over 14 days - so I assumed that the average per day is Northbound 13898/14 = 992 Southbound 15278/14 = 1091 This includes all residents movements (no idea how many residents on MG have vehicles) These numbers are not broken down into the class of vehicle so they are totals for motorcycles, cars and small vans, larger vans and LGVs; Large LGVs. The average speeds per class of vehicle are all under 20mph The results quote the 85th percentile. As I understand this statistic, the 85th Percentile Speed is the speed that 85 percent of vehicles do not exceed. Another way of looking at this is that only 15 percent of vehicles go faster than this speed, and 85 percent go at or below this speed. The 85th percentile is used by traffic engineers and planners to guage problems in free flowing traffic conditions. So it does not look like there is a 'speeding' problem according to this report, perhaps with the exception of motorcyles. Speeding checks always allow some margin (2% or so) of the limit. I assume that Melbourne has only recently become 20mph. When was this out of interest? Before or after this survey date?

Good point! See Lordship Lane at page 244. Does this document exclude anything about the parking bays for Shops and if so, where is that information recorded?

John K questioned the absence of a period to comment. Here is the introduction which does seem to prevent a period of comment and simply gives a day's notice of coming into force (31st July) Is this Southwark policy? Public notice Consolidation of waiting and loading restrictions The London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) Consolidation Order 30th July 2015 1. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the council of the London Borough of Southwark on 30 July 2015 made the above-mentioned consolidation order under sections 6 and 124 of and Part IV of Schedule 9 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 19841 as amended, following the procedure set out in regulation 21 of the Local Authorities? Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 19962 . 2. This general effect of the order will be to consolidate the provisions of the London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) Consolidation Order 2012 with all subsequent Orders that have amended or applied the provisions of that Order. 3. Copies of the order, which will come into force on 31 July 2015, and of all other relevant documents, will be available for inspection upon request at Public realm projects - network development, Southwark council, Environment and leisure, 3rd floor hub 1, 160 Tooley Street, London SE1 2QH. Please telephone 020 7525 2005 or e-mail:- [email protected] for details. 4. Any persons desiring to question the validity of the order or of any provision contained therein on the grounds that it is not within the relevant powers of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 or that any of the relevant requirements thereof or of any relevant regulations made thereunder has not been complied with in relation to the order may, within six weeks of the date on which the order was made, make application for the purpose to the High Court. Dated 30 July 2015 Nicky Costin Road network and parking business unit manager

There was a Traffic Survey done by the Metrolpolitan Police for Melbourne Grove in April 2015. Check back with the Met on emergency access assessed within that survey. Now Townley Road is also restricted as a result of the new road development which will slow traffic flow from Townley to ED Grove. This places even more importance on retaining access on the only remaining route emergency route - Melbourne Grove.

nunhead_man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/13342487.Min > i_Holland_cycling_scheme_that_has_split_community_ > _already_having_positive_impact_/?ref=mr&lp=4 This article references a legal challenege. http://www.e17streets4all.co.uk/legal-challange.html Wonder if they will share the basis of their challenge and concerns. Also in the Evening Standard yesterday: City Corporation set to block half of the Quietway routes http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/cycling-quietway-routes-in-the-city-set-to-be-scrapped-despite-three-deaths-on-londons-roads-in-12-months-10384534.html

There was a grand plan but it might not still be the case. Walked past Townley this eve and there seem to be more extensive works on Calton than I recall in the original consultation. Work underway on the Calton/Townley junction on the playing field side of Calton. I made a mental note to check vs the original consultation diagram.

Note the dates for the Pop-Ups in Dulwich (Sustrans organised). Nothing through my door yet so I am not sure how Sustrans/Southwark are ensuring that they communicate these events. I hear from friends in Rosendale that they are also in the dark and that Sustrans (Lambeth) are not broadcasting the events in that area well either. Tues 14th 6pm-7:30pm - North Dulwich station Weds 15th 6pm-7:30pm - Dulwich Village Shops Saturday 18th 9:30-11am - Turney rd/Burbage junction Thursday 23rd 6pm-7:30pm - Calton ave/Townley rd junction Can I also say that IMHO issuing a timeline does not equate to explaining how a consultation is being run and how its outputs are to be evaluated. The lack of clarity on how residents will be contacted is a prime example of a failure to explain. Perhaps we are considered to be telepathic. Nor can I see how the route was proposed in the first place and what might make it suitable or where there may be significant barriers to its use; for example Turney, where virtually all houses have drives.

Copied for adjacent thread: Re: Dulwich Estate - fit to run conservation? new Posted by DulvilleRes Yesterday, 11:14PM The Planning Decision from the SG Smith workshop/ garage development will be made this coming Tuesday 14th July by Southwark Council Planning Committee. The Committee are meeting at 7 pm in room G02, 160 Tooley Street, London SE1 2QH. Local representatives from Gilkes Crescent and Calton Avenue Residents Associations, along with others, will raise concerns about this huge - scale highly disruptive development and it's environmental and road safety implications for Dulwich children. The future of the stocks plaque will also be on the agenda. If you want to support them, join them on July 14th at North Dulwich Station at 5.50pm for the 6.01 pm train to London Bridge. The application reference is 14/AP/3104, and it will be first on the agenda. See SG Smith petition on Change.org for more information. A local show of concern and support can really help make a difference. Many thanks.

This seems to be in limited email circulation. However - it provides an opportunity to comment on the effectiveness and procedures of the Dulwich Community Council generally and on any specifics of conduct. Note deadline of Weds 15th July for responses. Dear resident This is a gentle reminder to ask you to give us your views about your experience of Community Councils to help us improve them- if you have not already done so. We would therefore appreciate it if you could please take a few minutes to give us your views by answering the questions on the online questionnaire by going on this link (Just press the control button and click on the link) http://tinyurl.com/nqtsbct All responses are anonymous and the deadline for answering the questions is Wednesday 15th July 2015. We are writing to you because your name is on our list as having attended one of our community council meetings and/or activities and regularly receive information about community council activities from us. We look forward to hearing from you soon. Thank you for your cooperation. All the responses are anonymous. The last section of the questions asks people to provide information about their age, gender etc. This is because Southwark Council holds equality as central to the day-to-day delivery of its services and engagement with our diverse communities, and this information helps us measure and analyse how well we are engaging with all those who live and work in the borough. This also forms part of our legal responsibilities under the Public Sector Equality Duty of the Equality Act (2010). So, for example knowing that people from a certain age group are not attending the meetings, can help us adapt our meetings accordingly. Please also remember that this information is very useful for our work but you are not obliged to answer or complete any or all of it. Please be assured that London Borough of Southwark holds and manages data in strict accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998. Southwark Council is the data controller for the purposes of the Data Protection Act. No personal information you have given us will be passed on to third parties for commercial purpose. Correspondence Address: Grace Semakula Community Council Development Officer for Dulwich I Southwark Council Housing & Community Services Dept, I Community Engagement Division I P.O.Box 64529 I London SE1P 5LX TEL: 020 7525 4928 Mobile: 07852 334 065 Email: [email protected] You can now be involved in community council discussions online, please go to https://forums.southwark.gov.uk or visit In My Area web page for Dulwich Be involved in consultations: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/consultations Follow us on facebook. http://www.southwark.gov.uk/residentinvolvement The date of the next meeting Dulwich Community Council is Wednesday 9 September 2015, 7pm. Venue tbc

This seems to be in limited email circulation. However - it provides an opportunity to comment on the effectiveness and procedures of the Dulwich Community Council generally and on any specifics of conduct. So a chance to reflect on this particular funding allocation perhaps? Note deadline of Weds 15th July for responses. Dear resident This is a gentle reminder to ask you to give us your views about your experience of Community Councils to help us improve them- if you have not already done so. We would therefore appreciate it if you could please take a few minutes to give us your views by answering the questions on the online questionnaire by going on this link (Just press the control button and click on the link) http://tinyurl.com/nqtsbct All responses are anonymous and the deadline for answering the questions is Wednesday 15th July 2015. We are writing to you because your name is on our list as having attended one of our community council meetings and/or activities and regularly receive information about community council activities from us. We look forward to hearing from you soon. Thank you for your cooperation. All the responses are anonymous. The last section of the questions asks people to provide information about their age, gender etc. This is because Southwark Council holds equality as central to the day-to-day delivery of its services and engagement with our diverse communities, and this information helps us measure and analyse how well we are engaging with all those who live and work in the borough. This also forms part of our legal responsibilities under the Public Sector Equality Duty of the Equality Act (2010). So, for example knowing that people from a certain age group are not attending the meetings, can help us adapt our meetings accordingly. Please also remember that this information is very useful for our work but you are not obliged to answer or complete any or all of it. Please be assured that London Borough of Southwark holds and manages data in strict accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998. Southwark Council is the data controller for the purposes of the Data Protection Act. No personal information you have given us will be passed on to third parties for commercial purpose. Correspondence Address: Grace Semakula Community Council Development Officer for Dulwich I Southwark Council Housing & Community Services Dept, I Community Engagement Division I P.O.Box 64529 I London SE1P 5LX TEL: 020 7525 4928 Mobile: 07852 334 065 Email: [email protected] You can now be involved in community council discussions online, please go to https://forums.southwark.gov.uk or visit In My Area web page for Dulwich Be involved in consultations: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/consultations Follow us on facebook. http://www.southwark.gov.uk/residentinvolvement The date of the next meeting Dulwich Community Council is Wednesday 9 September 2015, 7pm. Venue tbc

ed history a rather entertaining statement and a shame the Cllrs did not follow their own process: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200348/democracy_in_southwark/354/taking_a_deputation - Up to six people can form the deputation, including a nominated spokesperson. - At the meeting (does this sound how it went?) The chair of the meeting will ask councillors to hear the deputation and, assuming they agree, you will be invited to speak for up to five minutes. Prepare what you want to say in advance so that you can get across all the points you want to make. Councillors may want to ask some questions afterwards so it's worth trying to think in advance of what they might ask you so you are prepared to answer. The spokesperson or any other member of the deputation can respond. Although you cannot take part in any debate that follows your deputation, you may be invited to stay and listen.

Southwark News like any other paper wants to report the full picture. Don't be put off - contact the journalist if you have a different view and some facts to relay. Point them to this thread. Get to the root of the signatories and the bigger perspective of the limited benefits to few and the need to be community minded? They will be interested..............

Yes ZT. If this thread does nothing else we should make sure we get Southwark to be specific and clear about its policy and governance. And also how consistent it is in the way it implements that policy. At the moment the policy looks opaque and the implementation inconsistent and ineffective. And as a result, misleading.

InTexas, I get your train of thought but I don't think we are being given the whole picture. What is a Statutory Consultation supposed to consist of. And putting that aside, this is a very tight time frame project. If you are trying to keep it to time, design and budget, you would project manage this effectively by doing all the statutory requests together. I have not seen what was in the press and would be pleased to see that if someone has a copy. The temp traffic orders will alert on road closures for the police and emergency services and I understand that is a 21 day notice. Has this been done. Something about intent feels awry and concealed.

Save a tree and ask another friendly Cllr. Officers have to respond to a Cllr while they can ignore us.

and most importantly wait for a helpful community donation of ?5-10k