Melbourne Grove South Barrier

[tiddles]

The problem is that they will not listen or take into account residents point of view. Elsie road had extensive ?consults? with a clip board holding official who totally disregarded what was highlighted and discussed. They have a plan which is pushed thru no matter what. Do not expect Southwark council to give a fig about our input.

[EDAus]

I would encourage people with concerns or feedback to email the following people:

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected] - our local member of parliament

[email protected] - our London Assembly member

I have also emailed the below services to see if they have been consulted and with my concerns:

TFL - https://tfl.gov.uk/help-and-contact/

London Ambulance Service - https://www.londonambulance.nhs.uk/talking-with-us/

Metropolitan Police - https://www.met.police.uk/contact/af/contact-us/

London Fire Brigagde - https://www.london-fire.gov.uk/

[EDAus]

exdulwicher Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Exduliwcher -

>

> Thank you but I don't consider the local

> residents, local shop workers and other people I

> have spoken to about these issues over the years

> as statistics. I have taken on board their

> comments and lived experience.

>

> We call that "anecdata".

> When anecdotes (stories, opinion, sometimes first

> hand, sometimes a mix of "a friend of a friend

> said/did/experienced...") get blended with

> assumptions and supposition and (usually) a fair

> bit of emotion and then uplifted to be "fact".

>

> Classic case is pretty much any thread to do with

> cycling/cyclists and especially helmets which

> always brings out anecdata like never before - I

> got knocked off and I WOULD HAVE DIED without my

> helmet therefore everyone should wear helmets.

>

> First part is fact - got knocked off bike, was

> wearing helmet.

> Second part is supposition that can't be proven -

> "would have died" (well maybe, maybe not)

> Third part is the illogical leap to (wrong)

> conclusion.

>

> The introduction of the Workplace Parking Levy in

> Nottingham

> https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/10/1

> 7/nottinghams-workplace-parking-levy-creates-jobs-

> cuts-car-use-and-slashes-pollution/ saw similar

> responses, if not even more negative than some of

> the posts on here. It's been a resounding

> success.

>

> It's why anecdata is a dreadful measure of "what

> should be done" and you look at the bigger

> statistical picture. It's also why it's important

> to fill in surveys, questionnaires etc on the

> council website. Sounding off on here won't do a

> lot, much as the local councillors do seem to

> engage fairly freely and openly.

In 2015 when it was first proposed to close Melbourne Grove over 250 people signed a petition against the proposal and shared their lived experience / concerns with the Council.

Dismiss people's lived experience, concerns and feedback it if you wish.

I have spent my time raising my concerns.

[bels123]

A lot has changed since 2015, our understanding of the damaging impact air pollution has on our health, climate change to name a few. During lockdown there has been a big increase in cycling which should be encouraged, less cars on the road and all that. Residential roads like Melbourne are an obvious choice to be a safe cycle route alternative to Lordship Lane. Will make a big positive difference to pedestrian safety crossing Melbourne Grove/East Dulwich Grove junction too.

[first mate]

Air pollution will not be improved if traffic is simply shunted elsewhere as well as increased on Lordship Lane. I am also really concerned about the access of emergency services, as should everyone be. We might be under the impression that everything is getting back to normal but there is a good chance we will have a much worse second wave. If there is a second lockdown then the need for any barrier is negated and access becomes the priority.

[Dulwichgirl82]

bels123 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> A lot has changed since 2015, our understanding of

> the damaging impact air pollution has on our

> health, climate change to name a few. During

> lockdown there has been a big increase in cycling

> which should be encouraged, less cars on the road

> and all that. Residential roads like Melbourne are

> an obvious choice to be a safe cycle route

> alternative to Lordship Lane. Will make a big

> positive difference to pedestrian safety crossing

> Melbourne Grove/East Dulwich Grove junction too.

But worsen pedestrian safety at Matham grove/East dulwich grove junction (where there is a nursery and hence lots of young children crossing), Lordship lane/east dulwich grove and lordship lane/matham grove junction which are both important pedestrian routes as on the lane and the routes to schools.

Reducing traffic and pollution on residential roads is a concern for many roads in east dulwich but this proposal only helps the one road and likely worsens it on others. If there are to be road closures they need to be done in a sensible, area wide manner taking into account of the likely displacement of traffic to other roads, not just the protection of one road at the expense of others.

[bels123]

Totally agree those junctions are awful. I was pleased to hear the council mention it?s going to look at improving safety on Lordship Lane for pedestrians at a OHS Dulwich consultation meeting pre lockdown.

[first mate]

Why a road block on MG and not a permeable filter?

[bels123]

Looking at the plans it is a permeable filter.

[ruffers]

sally buying Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Why are people so mean on this forum

> Answers on Zoopla please.

Loving your work

[Serena2012]

Bels - conscious that the barrier will be permeable to bikes and pedestrians, but unless I?m mistaken what is being proposed here is a physical barrier which means that no motor vehicles can pass. A barrier creates all sorts of problems that a camera based filter or indeed a moveable barrier, allowing Emergency service vehicles; deliveries; residents to drive through would not. Ultimately, the burden borne by the surrounding streets will be disproportionate; and in circumstances where the relevant sections of Lordship Lane or East Dulwich Grove are closed for whatever reason, traffic will literally have nowhere to go as a route that is secondary to Lordship Lane and accordingly plays a crucial role during diversions will be completely inaccessible.

[first mate]

Bels123 it is a road block, no vehicles can pass through.

[goldilocks]

When were camera filters suggested please?

During the OHS consultation it was certainly the case that a 'permeable filter' was suggested - and what is being put in place is just that - the permeability comes from the fact that it lets some traffic through and not other sorts - in this case - pedestrians and cyclists can pass through the filters, motorised vehicles cannot.

In any event, the COVID measures being put in on a temporary basis need to be quick to implement and cheap, so ANPR filters are not going to be feasible right now. I think its been mentioned upthread too, but the majority of the traffic driving up Melbourne as a cut through is unlikely to be anything to do with residents in that area, so having a camera for resident access wouldn't seem to be likely to make a huge difference?

[first mate]

I think the general understanding of a permeable filter is rather different.

Aside from everything else stated, emergency service access is a real worry, has this been properly considered, given we are living through a pandemic with a likely second wave and all that?

[EDAus]

Creating a safe cycle / walking route does not require a 'permeable filter' or road barrier / closure.

The residents of Melbourne Grove had the option of a filter which would reduce 'through traffic' and make cycling / walking safer but allow residents vehicles etc., to enter and exit without negatively impacting neighbouring streets.

Instead it is proposed to introduce a 'permeable filter' traffic barrier to stop 'through traffic' entering and exiting Melbourne Grove reducing concerns / pollution on one road, while they the residents of that road remain free to drive their vehicles, via nearby streets creating congestion and pollution impacting other residents.

This is not changing local travel habits or reducing vehicle usage, it is empowering car / vehicle ownership for a minority, allowing them to redirect their usage onto already congested neighbouring streets.

[first mate]

I am also really unclear how all this enhances social distancing in the area?

[sally buying]

MG residents can stay in their cars on their private road whilst other have to walk etc. therefore social distancing.

[KalamityKel]

first mate Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I am also really unclear how all this enhances

> social distancing in the area?

It's the councils' sneaky way to justify the plans. By making out it's an essential implementation in the "battle" against the virus they're getting their own way. The approach is clever, shame the plan isn't *sighs

[first mate]

KK, yes, but it is interesting that although the Council?s ?emergency? justification for the MG barrier is to do with social distancing that all those who have come on to voice support have changed the direction of justification to align with the old, original proposal. Social distancing is not mentioned...at all!

[Penguin68]

I am also really unclear how all this enhances social distancing in the area?

If you can get the council to create a virtual gated community for you, you will be wonderfully socially distanced from the hoi polloi milling about outside your enclave.

[rollflick]

This scheme is about enabling far more people to walk and cycle, in recognition that capacity on public transport is seriously limited due to social distancing.

Melbourne Grove has been repeatedly designated as a future local cycling route but the council has failed to deliver. Trouble is the council has now also failed to communicate this plan or explain that it has a legal obligation to provide for dramatically increased levels of walking and cycling.

Given this legal obligation, anyone writing into the council to complain based on the comments in this thread is wasting their time, as well as that of officers and councillors. If you have a better suggestion that can be delivered in a similar length of time that could be different. Certainly there is a case for also filtering Crystal Palace Road too (rather than as an alternative).

[Rockets]

Everyone knows that these measures have nothing to do with social distancing, it is wanton opportunism by the council to circumvent their own consultation and due-diligence processes (which, it has to be said, are usually implemented with the same attitude to democracy, fairness and balance as a directive from the politburo).

Take a look at their long list of fast-tracked programmes throughout the borough, all but a handful are those that they had in the consultation system already and have nothing to do with Covid.

If these changes cause the problems many suspect then will have to ensure those who supported them are held accountable for their actions - but, as we see so many times with this version of the Labour party no-one is ever responsible and it is always someone else's fault.

[Charles Notice]

How will this encourage more people to walk are they all going to walk in the road ?

[Earl Aelfheah]

Lambeth have acting incredibly quickly to bring in new emergency schemes, aimed at enabling social distancing and active travel, in response to COVID-19. They have created several 'low traffic neighbourhoods' in just weeks, extended pavements and put in temporary cycle lanes and road closures. Southwark on the other hand have just accelerated a few schemes which they were pursuing anyway. Nothing new and very little in East Dulwich. It is impossible to shop on Lordship Lane and to keep 2 metres distance from other people - yet they have not widened the pavements, even at the worst pinch points.

I don't have a problem with the Melbourne Grove barrier per se, but I do wish that the council would follow Lambeth's lead and take a wider view.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Rockets Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Everyone knows that these measures have nothing to

> do with social distancing, it is wanton

> opportunism by the council to circumvent their own

> consultation and due-diligence processes (which,

> it has to be said, are usually implemented with

> the same attitude to democracy, fairness and

> balance as a directive from the politburo).

>

> Take a look at their long list of fast-tracked

> programmes throughout the borough, all but a

> handful are those that they had in the

> consultation system already and have nothing to do

> with Covid.

>

> If these changes cause the problems many suspect

> then will have to ensure those who supported them

> are held accountable for their actions - but, as

> we see so many times with this version of the

> Labour party no-one is ever responsible and it is

> always someone else's fault.

I agree with this. They have accelerated schemes they were planning already, instead of responding to the current crisis. As it happens, I'm not opposed to the former, but I am very disappointed at their failure in respect to the latter.