Closure of Melbourne Grove to through traffic - new petition

[Abe_froeman]

Has there been any progress on this matter since the DCC meeting at the beginning of September?

[rch]

Update from my end...

Firstly, I just wanted to flag that Melbourne had a significant amount of displacement traffic again when the 42" water main burst on Townley Road at the beginning of the month.

Some of the members of the Traffic Action Group were pointing the volume out to me as I walked by, but I couldn't get them to understand what the problem was.

So, I thought I would mention it here because I can see that the speed and volume measurement cables are out all over the area but I don't know when the recording exercise began. But, if everyone suddenly claims that the new measurements are significantly higher, I'll be happy to point out WHY!

[rch]

Secondly... I put in a CGS bid for build outs for the Ashbourne and Chesterfield junctions, as discussed on the door step during our Anti-Barrier petition campaign.

My understanding from ongoing discussions with highway engineers is that the biggest technical problem is the visibility issues at both junctions... and build outs will help to keep the parking back from the corners as well as bringing the corners closer together which would benefit pedestrians plus also act as a speed calming measure. The only problem is that the build outs would also restrict spaces to pull over to let other cars through, so this would need engineer advice on how best to proceed...

But I thought that I would at least get the bid in now so that funding could be in place depending on what engineers recommended.

The cheapest junction to reconfigure would be the Ashbourne junction (which is also the most problematic) but bringing the corners of Chesterfield closer together would not only help pedestrian visibility and crossing, but it would also close off Chesterfield to the M&S lorries it the redesign was configured cleverly.

I have no idea what will happen because communication is so bad, but I thought I'd put in the bid anyway... I'm guessing it will be rejected, but at least I tried.

According to the engineers, the most cost-effective way to address the issue is to ram extended double yellow lines in around all the junctions... which I actually think would be awful, hence my build out CGS bid so that there is an alternative on the table.

[James Barber]

Attached the Brief for considering change to Melbourne Grove (south).

I'd imagine that IF the study proposes recommendations for physical changes the Dulwich Community Council would need to agree with those changes, have sufficient funds for those changes, then proceed to public consultation sometime in the summer/autumn.

any comments or thoughts please let me know.

[tiddles]

I just wish they would stop tinkering. If they introduce those massive build outs at junctions or the usual "crack a nut with a sledgehammer" yellow lines extending from any junction then the parking for residents is going to be dreadful. The massive build outs reduce passing points. I am not aware of many crashes so if speed is the issue, just put up a load of speed cameras. I am fed up with huge amounts of money being spent by the council which end up inconveniencing people and invariably making junctions worse. A lot of people faffing about justifying their existence with costly reports employing a load of jargon that seems to be interpreted however you want, with reference to new dogmas/rules/reports and regulations that no one has heard of before.

They may want to introduce a cpz, ban cars, paint everywhere with double yellows, cut down or remove as many trees as possible and let large companies and developers do whatever they fancy but do stuff all for our small independent traders, but let us hope there are enough local people who can stop this from happening.

Oh dear, a bit grumpy and not even a glass of wine to hand. ....

[James Barber]

Hi riddles,

Officers have already started reviewing all the junctions in the area with proposition to put double yellow lines meeting the highway code. This, in my opinion, would be complete over kill.

In Village ward the councillors agreed to this and they;re being installed in the North Dulwich triangle in January.

Melbourne Grove (south) is shared with Village ward. We will try and persuade them that 10m double yellow lines in each direction from a junction is OTT.

However, we don;t have sufficient funds for lots of bailouts. Cameras are deployed by the London Camera Partnership which is one person and their dog - so no cameras, I don't see any trees being cut down due to whatever recommendations is made.

Have that glass of wine!

[Charles Notice]

Hi Tiddles

They are doing this all over. The latest is Bellenden Village.LOL, they are consulting on getting rid of the one way system that has been in existence since 1989. Tried and tested and works. No accidents except the odd minor scrape in all that time.

Apparently newcomers deem it to be dangerous. Closing roads, moving bus stops yellow lines etc etc.

Apparently there is a grant Southwark can get its hands on. Townley Road anybody.

It would appear that unless traffic is stationary it is speeding.

All crossing points and junctions work but we must have change.

As Southwark is requesting replies to the consultation by email it has I feel already been decided.

Real local knowledge is and will be ignored.

How many local residents have the time to look at and respond to this kind of consultation or even know about it.

Change for the sake of change buy the few

[first mate]

Charles, many of us share your frustration but let's be clear it is not change for the sake of change but carefully calculated to put as much pressure as possible on parking space.

At the same time one lot propose lots of double yellows another lot wants to actually close the whole road. All this when we have two new large schools, a large supermarket and a range of residential developments all guaranteed to increase parking pressure. The calculation that all Councillors have made is that there will be a tipping point where residents beg for CPZ. They all want it, it's just they each have their own pet traffic pressure methods.

Objections from one political side about the preferred parking pressure methods of the other sides is disingenuous rot.

[ed_pete]

Usual rhetoric without evidence. However I am glad that Charles has highlighted the consultation on the changes to Bellenden Road / Holly Grove etc for which I will start a separate thread.

[tiddles]

Hi James,

The trees thing was a reference to the small trees being removed in dunstans and friern road (the ones that I know about) .

Kind regards grumpy riddles

[bels123]

.

[edhistory]

> Briefing paper ? Presentation from Aecom

Are these the folk who will get the contact if the plan is approved?

[Abe_froeman]

These people? http://www.conwayaecom.com

[ED_moots]

Seems that aecom have been engaged to do something under works ref LBS-SC1454973.

http://streetworks.southwark.gov.uk/details.asp?ref=LBS-SC1454973&org_code=

There is also an online survey...

[ED_moots]

https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/melbourne-grove-south

Online survey. I am not sure how people are supposed to input to these surveys if no one is told. Or maybe that's the point?

Does anyone know, James Barber perhaps, how we get more information about this work that aecom are doing?

Is the DCC really asking it's main highways contractor ConwayAecom to impartially acces whether we need some road works done?

[BrandNewGuy]

As consultations go, it's not bad ? there are no leading questions along the lines of 'Do you think extra traffic calming measures should be in place?' etc. It seems the council have rowed back somewhat from the community council's initially hasty reaction.

[richard tudor]

ED_moots Wrote:

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

> https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment

> -leisure/melbourne-grove-south

>

> Online survey. I am not sure how people are

> supposed to input to these surveys if no one is

> told. Or maybe that's the point?

>

> Does anyone know, James Barber perhaps, how we get

> more information about this work that aecom are

> doing?

>

> Is the DCC really asking it's main highways

> contractor ConwayAecom to impartially acces

> whether we need some road works done?

I would have thought Cllr Barber would have posted this on the forum if one remembers the row that erupted not so long ago.

Like the recent consultation with the Bellenden one way system unless you saw the out of the way signs not to many people knew about it. Again was this deliberate and the online survey only for those in the loop.

In many Southwark matters being a little more open would be appreciated.

[BrandNewGuy]

Couldn't agree more. Perhaps Southwark Council might like to have a dedicated section of the forum to post details of all consultations that affect East Dulwich. Councillors?

[ED_moots]

If Conway are doing the assessment then it's a clear conflict of interest.

Would we ask tube drivers if they want more money or ISIS to assess if we need more jihadists in London?

If Conway are engaged to do work, what is it and where's the assessment dubiously funded by our CGS money?

[James Barber]

I'll be mentioning this consultation in SE22 next month as a starter. I'm also expecting letters to the area to encourage responses.

Hi BNG,

In the past I created a thread for every consultation I came across affecting ED but was discouraged by Admin from continuing this. It could swamp the forum. One thread could get really jumbled.

People can register with Southwark council and then any consultation affecting East Dulwich from Southwark Council they should get an email prod from the council to take part.

Hi richard tudor,

I've been a little quieter than usual as recently started a fab new day job.

Hi ED_moots,

The consultation survey will have clear cut numbers and hopefully lots of comments as well. I really don;t think, assuming raw data without names, will result in some biased report. But I;d welcome everyone to check it out when produced. If it does then clearly I;d be seeking a refund of their fees.

[BrandNewGuy]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi BNG,

> In the past I created a thread for every

> consultation I came across affecting ED but was

> discouraged by Admin from continuing this. It

> could swamp the forum. One thread could get really

> jumbled.

But not if it has its own section. Admin?

[Abe_froeman]

James is this survey the ?10,000 feasibility study?

[Earl Aelfheah]

James - can you clarify regarding Conway please?

[ED_moots]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> I'll be mentioning this consultation in SE22 next

> month as a starter. I'm also expecting letters to

> the area to encourage responses.

>

> Hi BNG,

> In the past I created a thread for every

> consultation I came across affecting ED but was

> discouraged by Admin from continuing this. It

> could swamp the forum. One thread could get really

> jumbled.

> People can register with Southwark council and

> then any consultation affecting East Dulwich from

> Southwark Council they should get an email prod

> from the council to take part.

>

> Hi richard tudor,

> I've been a little quieter than usual as recently

> started a fab new day job.

>

> Hi ED_moots,

> The consultation survey will have clear cut

> numbers and hopefully lots of comments as well. I

> really don;t think, assuming raw data without

> names, will result in some biased report. But I;d

> welcome everyone to check it out when produced. If

> it does then clearly I;d be seeking a refund of

> their fees.

Hyperthetically one might notify respondents of a certain opinion of the existence of a survey and not those of differing opinion.

[bels123]

.