Consultation on ?improving? the junction of East Dulwich Grove, Townley Road and Green Dale

[wulfhound]

So the real issue seems to be volume along the narrow section of Melbourne, not speeding? To be honest, volume is increasing in the whole Dulwich area (and London!)... it's mostly noticeable in Melbourne during rush hour and school run time.

The most helpful solution would be to lobby TfL to increase the bus service down here (and extending the tube to Camberwell will help indirectly)... it's only better public transportation that will get people out of their cars.

Mostly agree apart from the last sentence. Improve cycling to the point where the majority of kids can ride to school and activities (the distances involved are usually reasonable - the problem is almos entirely down to road conditions) and the school run - aka bane of driver, cyclist and pedestrian alike - might largely disappear. Most of the parents who drive their kids to school do so because they feel like they have to.

Also worth getting up to speed (ha) with the latest advances in electric bikes also. Ten years ago there wasn't a practical way for someone in less than ideal health to cycle a typical ED to Zone 1 journey (five or six miles and a fairly big hill). These days they're less than ?1000, and will carry a week's shopping for two people.

But also bear in mind that Calton Avenue residents have been campaigning for a gate to close off the top of their road and Gilkes Cres are also talking about campaigning for a gate at the junction of EDG to mitigate the displacement from the new Townley junction... so this could be the thin end of a complicated wedge.

Calton Ave residents want a gate..? That genuinely surprises me - all that arguing over the right turn at Townley, and now they want to shut Calton off entirely? Not that I'm against the idea - if the Cycle Quietway thing is going to happen, it feels like a necessary step - just surprised given the background.

[Bobby P]

LalKJ, I'm certainly not suggesting that you who want this are approaching it in an underhand way. Having been quite active at the time of the CPZ consultation, I do however note that some councillors have agendas to promote CPZ use and that things like barriers, reduced parking spaces resulting and displaced congestion rather play into their agenda.

I'm not also sure how you define a "requisite majority" for your petition. I've found many of my neighbours didn't know or didn't agree to barrier proposals, and I don't know how you quantify the number of responses you have compared to number of interested stakeholders who need to be consulted. (This was an issue in the CPZ debate, as the Council in their consultation only asked some roads their views, but not the ones where parking overflow would be displaced to, and this issue came up in the vote against which we won).

I unfortunately can't be at the meeting today, but I trust we will get a full chance to have our say at a later date, as this has all been rather suddenly sprung upon some of us, and presumably a much larger community will need to be officially consulted if this is to be investigated further. If it's true that a previous move to block Melbourne was thrown out before over traffic displacement concerns (per rch's post above), then why do people think the outcome would be any different this time?

[richard tudor]

A notice will go up on a lamp post which most residents will miss if they are not in the loop and it will get through.

Most people have to work to survive and not have the time to promote things like this things whilst others have plenty of time to push their own agendas

[Otto]

I'm on tell Grove and have not seen anything through the door - any chance of sending on a letter as mentioned above? Uncertain whether our house was missed or the whole street?first I've heard of the Melbourne Grove proposal...

[mockingbird]

The 'Melbourne' deputation was made and claims to have contacted everyone 4 or 5 times. Disputed from the floor. Seems that some of the Dulwich Community Councillors are supportive, some not and others concerned of knock-on effects to Calton and Townley. The deputation leader expressed concerns that Southwark planners themselves are not in favour and the Village Labour Councillor explained that Southwark have formalities to go through. College Ward Councillor noted the summer Townley Road developments and that nothing should be done before Sept. The deputation also said that it refused to have speed checks done, even though these were on offer. What was a surprise is that (blink) the DCC agreed to put ?5-10k budget to a trial for this - whatever that trial consists of. Many deputations will prick up ears at this.... Is it really that easy to secure funding without any formality?

[LalKJ]

Otto - have PM'd you. A letter went through every door - may have been swept up in junk mail (they weren't in envelopes)? If you have a chance to reply to PM, I will get organiser to get you another copy

[@Woodwarde]

DCC 24th June Meeting re Townley. None of the Southwark planners involved in the Townley development showed up.

Councillors rather bemused and no-one able to provide answers to:

- Why work has already started on pavements at the junction (when South London Press indicated a start date of the 4th July and no local notifications made)

- Whether Statutory Consultations have been conducted for both temporary works (road closures/changes during the works) and permanent works (new road conditions such as a cycle lane, removal of parking, introduction of yellow lines). The March DCC minutes and prior Southwark communications advise consistently that the initial Townley consultation was informal and that a formal Statutory Consultation would be necessary.

- Is this a default in due and legal process? None of the Councillors seemed to know whether a formal statutory consultation and period of notice has taken place - usually 21-28 days needed. A few commented that they had not seen anything themselves and agreed that given the significant interest in this junction to date, the lack of communication from Southwark was extremely poor.

Quite a few questions/comments, not only on the formal process, but once again the failure by Southwark to communicate openly and appropriately to those affected.

An open question. Can the works go ahead without these formalities? And who will answer this question for us?

Nothing obvious on the Southwark website or the London Gazette. Also a quick look on Elgin (roadworks.org - open govt data) shows only the current pavements works.

[Bicknell]

So the council isn't following the correct legal process? Are we happy with that?

[spider69]

For what area and project is the ?5/10.000.00 going to be used for.

Would have thought there was a greater need for funds for more worthwhile project/s. Still its who you know.

[intexasatthe moment]

Throwing money at a trial ? Petition + deputation = ? 5/1000 for a " trial " ? as mockingbird says we can all have a go for any old scheme . - shocking

Lack of consultation and following procedure - shocking

No one able to provide answers - shocking

Al deserve a different adjective ,but I'm too gob smacked to find one .

[intexasatthe moment]

From the other thread

messageRe: Closure of Melbourne Grove to through traffic new

Posted by LalKJ Yesterday, 10:58PM

Hi Mockingbird

Just to clarify - full speed checks were done by the police with the taping across the road, for over a week. What the residents did refuse to do is stand on the road themselves with speed cameras. This was discussed with a couple of the Councillors at the time it was mooted as there has been previous aggression towards people wielding speed cameras, and they advised that it might not be the best thing to do, or be necessary as the police had taken more accurate data over a wider period of time.

Options: Reply To This Message?Quote This Message?Reply via Private Message (PM)?Follow This Thread?Report This Message

messageRe: Closure of Melbourne Grove to through traffic new

Posted by LalKJ Yesterday, 11:01PM

Sorry for the follow up - also to clarify the ?5-10k was not allocated for a trial of a barrier but for a feasibility study - which, from what I can gather, will focus on the effects of displacement of any traffic if a barrier were erected.

[edhistory]

Is LalKJ the new arrival in East Dulwich?

[EDAus]

We live on Ashbourne Grove and only received a letter through our door at the beginning of this week nor have we been approached to sign any petition or have we been door knocked by any concerned residents. We would have attended the meeting last night however we had a school meeting which had been booked in months in advance.

[James Barber]

For clarity it wasn't me who suggested closing Melbourne Grove. I was suggesting how to get full width speed humps.

Cllr Charlie Smith cam up with the idea of closing Melbourne grove - it appears a really good idea to explore and I wish I had come up with it.

[MarkT]

DCC 17th March 2015. Agenda Item 8. Report from Head of Public Realm "Townley Road... Junction Improvements"

Paragraph 6 "Informal public consultation took place for Option 8a... from 20th February 2015 to 13th March 2015?

Paragraph 9 ?the Cabinet Member is recommended to approve the implementation of the proposed improvements associated with Option 8a? subject to completion of statutory procedures.?

Paragraph 18 ?If approved for implementation this will be subject to statutory consultation required in the making of any permanent Traffic Management Orders. If any objections are received to that statutory consultation, that cannot be informally resolved, a further decision by the cabinet member will be required to consider and determine those objections?

Paragraph 20 ?If it is to proceed, the scheme must be on site in July 2015 to comply with TfL funding restrictions?

From the evidence in posts above, no statutory consultation seems to have taken place.

MarkT

[intexasatthe moment]

Thanks MarkT . Very clear .

[Zebedee Tring]

An email has gone to the Council Leader and all Councillors represented on the Dulwich Community Care Council, in essence saying that the Council should not implement the scheme until it has completed all the legal and statutory notices and duties for all aspects of the work, both temporary and permanent.

[edhistory]

Who "won" the contract?

[hopskip]

So how has work started already on Greendale? This is before the 4th July start date mentioned in the thread above.

If these steps have not actually taken place, and are required legally and procedurally, it makes me wonder just how many other schemes go ahead and bypass the statutory formalities.

[James Barber]

This is the officers response I've had:

"

All appropriate permits and temporary traffic management orders are in place.

Some works commenced this week on Greendale. These require a permit but no temporary order.

The main works start on 4 July. A Temporary traffic management order is required to enable the closure of Townley Road. This order is in place and is what you have seen advertised in the Southwark News. There is no requirement to consider objections for such an order but there is a requirement to advertise - which was done in Southwark News but also by way of a street notice.

Therefore the 'main works' including the closure of Townley Road will indeed start on 4 July. Since this directly affects residents, this is the works referred to in the letter. This letter was sent in advance of our printed distribution to a number of local stakeholders and interested parties, including ward councillors and the chair of DCC. In an effort to go over and above our normal level of service, this included the offer of a meeting if there were any detailed elements of the construction programme and diversion arrangements that stakeholders wished to discuss with officers and contractors. Hard copy letters and details of diversionary routes are being delivered to residents in the affected area today and tomorrow.

There are certain, limited elements of the scheme that require permanent Traffic management orders to be made. Specifically, where new double yellow line restrictions and mandatory cycle lanes are proposed. These have not yet been advertised but will be in July by way of press advert and street notice. I assume this is the statutory consultation that residents are referring to, which I have already explained has not yet happened. Due process will be followed regarding making TMOs for these elements of the scheme. These elements are not a pre-requisite for the main civil works to be undertaken, and the main works themselves do not require a permanent TMO and therefore do not require a statutory consultation. In an ideal world, these elements would have been advertised, and any objections duly considered, prior to commencing the main works. However, due to the programme pressures of needing the works to be built in the school summer holidays, we have had to progress them in the way that we have. We have plans in place for place for properly considering any objections that we might receive and for amending the detail of the scheme accordingly if those objections are upheld. In line with the council's constitution, any such objections that cannot be informally resolved will be determined by the Cabinet Member for Environment and the Public Realm by way of a formal IDM.

I hope this helps explain and clarify any confusion.

"

[@Woodwarde]

James, thank you for posting this up for all to see.

Is it an official statement to Councillors only and do you have a view on it?

[James Barber]

My view. great to get quick response. Officers working to the strict letter of the rules. But it all looks weasly. The officers and cabinet councillors lead I'm sure didn't intend this but that's how it appears.

I'm still haunted by the traffic death of a pre teen child trying to negotiate traffic works at junction of East Dulwich Grove with Peckham Rye. From that we had temporary traffic lights with pedestrian phases. Some of the pre main works have involved closing whole pavements - Green Dale eastern side - with no alternatives other than signs saying cross over the road at an unsafe point.

We want parents to let kids walk to school. The flip side is councils must ensure walking and cycling routes remain unambiguous for pre teens to negotiate.

These pre main works are failing us in that. And I have raised this matter.

[Zebedee Tring]

James, unless I've totally missed the point, what the officers are saying in their response to you doesn't square with paragraphs 16-18 of the report to the March DCC meeting, which read as follows:

"16. Informal public consultation was carried out in February 2015 / March 2015, as detailed above.

17. This report provides an opportunity for final comment to be made by the community council prior to a non-key decision scheduled to be taken by the cabinet member for Environment, Transport and Recycling following this community council meeting.

18. If approved for implementation this will be subject to statutory consultation required in the making of any permanent Traffic Management Orders. If any objections are received to that statutory consultation that cannot be informally resolved, a further decision by the cabinet member will be required to consider and determine those objections."

As the report to the March DCC meeting makes clear, the public consultation that took place earlier this year was informal only. It would be illogical for consultation on the full proposals to be informal but the formal statutory consultation only to relate to minor issues such as waiting restrictions.

At the very least, the officers are guilty of misleading Councillors and members of the public and therefore potentially vulonerable to an allegation of maladministration.

[@Woodwarde]

Seems to be a clear description here which is presumably common to London:

http://www.richmond.gov.uk/traffic_management_order_process

Extract:

Permanent Orders

Larger schemes proposed by the Council will have been subject to local consultation before the detailed design has been completed. In all cases where traffic management measures are proposed and where one or more permanent Traffic Management Orders are required, the Council is required to carry out a statutory procedure before the scheme may be introduced and enforced.

The Council must publish a notice setting out its proposals, following which a period of 21 days is allowed for members of the public to make representations or lodge objections to such proposals.

The Council is obliged to consider all such objections, although they may be dismissed if the principles which lie behind the objection have already been considered by the Council. The new restrictions (with or without modification as a result of the consideration of objections) must be introduced within two years of the proposals being published.

[Bicknell]

Am I missing something? Southwark's not going to bother with the legal process of asking for objections until they're halfway through?

So you go for a haircut, and he shaves half your head, and you say, hang on a minute, that's not what we agreed, and he says, well I've started now so I might as well finish it. What are you going to do? Ask him to stick the hair back on?