ed_pete

It's like a fine wine Mick - give it time.

One of my issues with the petition is that is doesn?t go into sufficient detail on what the issues are and what the study should address. Having said that I don?t believe that CGS money is an appropriate means of funding traffic studies anyway and I'm even less keen on the outcome being funded from the CGS capital budget. The anti-barrier deputation criticises the original deputation for not making use of Traffic Management Orders and yet seeks to use CGS budget to fund their own studies outcome.

Hi Jenny1 The CGS remit is that "CGS funding projects should make Dulwich a better place to live and projects must make a permanent, physical improvement." I'm not so sure that funding a study in isolation where the outcome is a printed report really meets that criteria however others, including the Councillors, may beg to differ. James (if you are reading this) - are you able to give examples of where the DCC has allocated funds for a feasilibilty study on the past or would this be setting a precident ?

In my view the the recommendations being put to the DCC are flawed: 1a - "The Dulwich Community Council (DCC) reverse its decision to allocate ?10,000 on a feasibility study for a permanent barrier." The amount was estimated at between ?5 & ?10k. The barrier was not the only option to be considered. 1b ? ?DCC commission a traffic management study to include all roads in the Grove Vale/Lordship Lane, East Dulwich Grove, Townley Road Triangle.? The objective of which would be what exactly ? Southwark already produce a Borough-wide Transport plan which they report on annually. http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/200107/transport_policy 3.1.b ?a barrier placement clearly constitutes a significant traffic management measure for which Southwark has an established process, including feasibility studies. Sponsoring Traffic Management Orders (TMO) with CGS funds may be regarded as an attempt to circumnavigate the rigour of the existing TMO process, particularly in light of the Officers Report. Piecemeal traffic schemes such as this will inevitably fall outside, and even work against, the overall traffic strategy for the area. ? So how do you plan to fund your feasibility study if not using CGS funds ?

Jenny - we already have data from April this year and there will already be a follow up on speed monitoring in 2016 - the officers report states "Officers are committed to undertaking further counts in 2016 as part of our post-implementation 20mph review programme." Do we really need to spend money on another one ?

Andrew1011 Wrote: > > Clearly the speed at which modern developments > take place has escaped you. The Charter East Dulwich will start with year 7 from September 2016 which means that they will not be a full capacity (years 7 - 11) until September 2020, five years hence. They have yet to say what the arrangements will be regarding the 6th form. If this is designed to take the year 11 pupils after their GCSE's then full capacity would not be reached until 2022. Hardly impending. Harris Primary opened in September 2014 with children in reception year. Full capacity will not be reached until those children reach year 6 which again will not be until September 2020. Undertaking any study now that attempts to predicate traffic flows and volumes once the schools are at full capacity is a waste of time and money.

Can all the people that want to have a go at Conways and their relationship with Southwark please use this thread in future rather than clog up other threads ? Thanks !

Definitely worth contacting the Police. I think banks have CCTV's so they may be able to identify the person if the time of the transaction was recorded.

There may be an impact on MG due to the new schools, healthcentre and M&S but it's hardly impending. The schools haven't been built and the won't be fully operational at maximum capacity for several (5+) years. As for the health centre well they've not even broken ground yet so I won't hold my breath for the impact of that one either. Melbourneresident I sympathise with you and I feel sad that this thread could not have been used for more sensible debate rather than tabloid-style accusations of nimby-ism, gated communities, self-interested house prices, Barber-bashing and best of all objection to the use of the phrase rat-run.

"Where a problem has been concocted and presented to the DCC in order to justify the effective closure of a well used road" - no evidence has been presented for this and iirc the barrier was a councillors proposal. Sorry to split hairs but the petition calls for a traffic management study, no mention is made of policy. Whats this study going to cost and how would it differ to the one proposed by the other group ? Who will be responsible for its remit ? Is there really a problem here at all ? I suspect that some people will have signed the petition because they don't want a barrier rather than perceiving theres a problem that needs to be solved that will use vital council resources.

So we started out with some concerned residents presenting a deputation to the DCC about speeding traffic on Melbourne Grove after which they (the DCC) authorised ?5-10k from CGS funds for a feasibility study to find a solution. No ToR for the study has been agreed though one has been suggested (by the same group of residents) that includes a barrier as one, but not the only, option. This in spite of the council officer briefing that one would only be recommended in ?special circumstances? whatever they are. The ToR also wants to consider the knock-on impact of any measures on the surrounding roads and express the desire to not ?simply push the problem elsewhere?. The officers briefing paper also said that the only likely source of funding for any road changes is the CGS fund. Now we have another petition to go in front of the DCC that wants a different study, again no ToR has been agreed or in this case proposed, that looks very similar expect they do not want to consider a barrier. There?s nothing in the petition?s wording to suggest that there is or isn?t a problem on Melbourne Grove or any of the surrounding streets. To quote rch from earlier on in this thread, in respect of the original deputation: ?I must say, in this age of austerity, I can think of better things to spend ?10k of public money on!? Hear, hear ? it all seems like a complete waste of time and money.

Can I ask how the "comprehensive traffic management study to include all roads in the Grove Vale/Lordship Lane, East Dulwich Grove, Townley Road Triangle" is to be funded ?

Off topic but for those wanting to visit Southwark's Waste Facility there's an Open Day on 19th September. Part of the Open House weekend. http://www.veolia.co.uk/southwark/WonderDay2015

I suspect your future neighbours would be happy to compensate you though it is quite likely that this is not really a top priority for them at the moment and easily forgotten. I would imagine that the stress of buying and renovating a house is taking up all their time at the moment. It maybe a good idea to write them a short note - having something physical is more likely to act as a reminder.

The ToR was a suggestion (to quote the JB thread) so if you don?t like it and you?re happy to have a study go ahead then how about suggesting an alternative ?

P68 writes: "I believe that many of those in the barrier group are entirely well meaning, although clearly they do want to shift the problems of living in a heavily populated area with relatively poor public transport (particularly east: west) onto the shoulders of others. " yet their proposed TOR states: "We have no desire to simply push the problem elsewhere. "

Consultation on Carlton Avenue/Dulwich Village/Turney Road Quietway now open: https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/quietway-in-dulwich/consult_view

There's also a place called TLC in penge that is very good for Led lights. You may not know this but Edwards (above) used to be where Cafe Nero is now.

Charles - Melbourne Grove is on the border of two Wards so 6 out of the 9 DCC councillors are directly involved. As for the other 3 I guess you have to ask them.

"Turning roads into a gated community has much of the same effect. The introduction of vast swathes of yellow lines (which will incidentally speed traffic but (mainly) reduce parking availability) is another tool in the CPZ maven's toolbox. " Such hyperbole ! Can I make a positive suggestion ? Why not invite those behind the DCC deputation round for a cuppa and have honest discussion face-to-face ?

So, according to the DCC Agenda, the depuation asked for: There is no definition of what "better signage and double yellow lines" means exactly but it could simply mean re-painting the existing lines to make it clearer as to where they are.

rahrahrah - I believe it was Cllr Charlie Smith who first mooted the idea of a barrier. Perhaps you should email him and ask him his views and post them back here. Here's his email address: [email protected]

The best rates that I've found are here : https://www.bestforeignexchange.com/fast_track_new.php Requires a trip into town but it could be worth it for that amount.

Hold your horses Foxy http://www.sony.co.uk/support/en/windows10#product-selector

1. Type Quiz into the Search Box 2. Click the Search button.