Bellenden-Holly Grove-Lyndhurst Way-Chadwick: Turning one-way to two way traffic

[Eileen]

The Council has been consulting over the last month on proposals to replace the one way traffic system around Bellenden Rd - Chadwick Rd - Lyndhurst Way - Holly Gv with a two way traffic system; the proposal includes closing the Highshore Rd exit from Holly Gv - Bellenden Rd.

Please see the Council's consultation details here:

* introduction & explanation: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200308/current/2998/bellenden-holly_grove-lyndhurst_way-chadwick_turning_one-way_to_two-way_traffic

* consultation document with details: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/3334/bellenden-chadwick_consultation_document

The consultation has been flawed by being far too limited in its publicity, and too partial by presenting a two way traffic system as the only way to achieve improved safety. More info here: http://peckhamresidents.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/926/). As a result of our protest on these points, the deadline for comments has now been extended to 12th April.

The poor publicity meant that most local residents knew nothing about the proposals or the public meeting held on 13 March. We are posting this topic here to enable a local discussion to share views about the proposals. Comments from all who walk, cycle or drive through the Bellenden area will be welcome. We will ensure the Council sees them, but please also make sure you put your comments in to the council direct through http://goo.gl/DwjY0 and / or email them to: [email protected]

Bellenden Residents' Group - http://www.bellenden.net

[ianr]

To quote the Southwark consultation page that Eileeen's pointed to, "Where can see more detail plans?"

[tiddles]

yes cannot see where to see the info??

[Eileen]

to get almost straight to the consultation document click on http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/3334/bellenden-chadwick_consultation_document

That is from the [goo.gl] link above which is http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200308/current/2998/bellenden-holly_grove-lyndhurst_way-chadwick_turning_one-way_to_two-way_traffic,

and then scroll down on that page and click on the 'consultation document' in **You can also send us feedback by downloading and returning our consultation document**.

That takes you to the last link to click for the document: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/3334/bellenden-chadwick_consultation_document

Hope that gets you there.

[JDR]

I might be being dim but can't find the changes you mentioned to Highshore road. Is there a map of this and which section?

Thanks

[Eileen]

JDR Wrote:

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

> I might be being dim but can't find the changes

> you mentioned to Highshore road. Is there a map of

> this and which section?

>

> Thanks

look at map on page 2 and one of the pictures on page 4 - *Junction of Bellenden Road with Highshore Road*.

The Holly Grove to Highshore Rd stretch of Bellenden Rd would go two way instead of one way but there would be no exit or entrance at Highshore Rd junction.

[PeckhamRose]

Thanks for letting us know about this Eileen. I have commented on the Feedback. I want to go to see this. They have to ask our opinions but they have already made up their mind!

[klikker22]

I guess their rationale makes sense ie that getting rid of one way systems reduces traffic speed. I live round here and walk along this stretch of road all the time, and the cars definitely speed up Bellenden road from Ganapati towards the Victoria Inn all the time. The junction with Chadwick road is particularly lethal, especially for cyclists. Also, the one way systems around this area are a nightmare to navigate around, and I definitely agree that removing them will help slow down traffic. I hope they eventually also remove the ones on Choumert road, Choumert Grove and all the other streets towards Rye Lane too.

However, I don't understand the rationale for the bollards blocking Bellenden road next to Highshore Road;it won't affect traffic speed and will be really annoying for motorists driving up to the Peckham Road from this area. Is it because the road is too narrow? If so, could they not just leave that part as a one way street? Or give one direction the priority?

Also, since loads of cars drive from the Peckham road towards East Dulwich, they should make that route the principal right of way on those junctions. Making the cars stop every 2 seconds on those junctions will just cause more danger;it will become like the junction of Maxted and Bellenden road which is very dangerous and annoying both as a driver and pedestrian - there they should make the turn into Maxted as the principal right of way. I would like to see the evidence that shows that making cars stop at the junctions all the time is safer. I also think lots of T junctions makes it more dangerous for cyclists.

Finally, how many bad accidents have there been on this bit of road over the past 5 years? If very few, then perhaps money could be better invested elsewhere? The junction of East Dulwich Grove and Lordship Lane, for example, is much more lethal than Bellenden Road.

[edhistory]

A better way. Just need to acquire a little land.

John K

[gillpeckham]

I don't think I've got an overall problem with the principle. However my main concern is with the very narrow pavement on Bellenden Road between Chadwick Road and Blenheim Grove which is heavily used by pedestrians on their way to Peckham Rye station by the shortest route from Bellenden Road, via Blenheim Grove. This is made worse by the Council allowing the owner of the property on the corner of Bellenden Road and Blenheim Grove to grow a thick privet hedge which overhangs up to 50% of the width of an already narrow pavement, a matter about which I have already written to the Council to little avail. Pedestrians are frequently obliged to step into the road to pass each other on this stretch of the pavement, which the restoration of two way traffic will make even more dangerous, since vehicles will drive nearer the pavements to avoid oncoming traffic. So I would argue that the widening of the pavement proposed in the plan on the other side of the railway bridge on Bellenden Road be extended all the way up to Chadwick Road.

[Markjonathan]

Eileen- thanks for bringing this issue to everyone's attention. I live on the one-way section of Bellenden Rd and my immediate neighbours and I are completely against the proposal. Hoping that 2-way will force traffic to slow down is not the solution. It will just make the journey as awkward as the other 2 way streets in the vicinity where the roads are not really wide enough for parked vehicles and 2-way traffic. I think it will create more congestion which will not help the environment. It certainly won't make crossing the road safer with traffic coming from 2 directions. We believe the issue that needs solving is simply to make a safe way of crossing Chadwick Road and Holly Grove as you walk along Bellenden Rd. I'm not convinced this issue has been improved in the new plans and the current (effective) Zebra crossing on Lyndhurst Way appears to be partially removed making crossing the road here less safe. Are the raised platforms really safer for crossing the road? Don't we need Zebra or Pelican crossings?

This is a massive change and will effect pedestrians, cyclists and road users who need to get across this area. The consultation has failed to include many people who will be effected.

The attention to detail on the public consultation document's maps is shocking: On different maps there are a number of spelling mistakes (eg: 'Belended'/ 'Bellendon'/ 'Juction' and the most shocking- the mis-naming of Holly Grove as Chadwick Rd!This doesn't fill me with confidence that our traffic planners have their fingers on the pulse.

How much will this all cost versus maintaining the current one-way but improving safe crossings for pedestrians?

Why have we only been given one option that purports to be the safest option?

Why are the planners refusing to consider anything other than the 2 way option?

On a personal level, those residents like myself who have off street parking will now be trying to get onto our driveways from a 2-way street which will cause further delay to other road users rather than the current situation where they can overtake safely. I think it will be a much more scary manoeuvre.

One of my neighbours remembers the time before the current one-way system and is adamant that its better now as a one way system.

I support making the area safer for all pedestrian and road users but this is not the solution.

[richard tudor]

I can endorse the last paragraph having lived in the area for almost 48 years. The current road system has worked ever since it was first put in. Tried and tested

This is just change for the sake of change. An example in this plan. Why would you want to close off Bellenden/highshore Road with bollards.

Lets hope the views of long established residents will be valued, I think someone asked how many accidents has happened in the one way system, from memory NONE.

With such a lack of consultation lets hope that this has not already been decided.

[edhistory]

Will F.M.Conway be awarded this contract?

John K

[lietoswim]

I regularly cycle through the area described by this proposal and would welcome a return to a 2 way system. I frequently reflect on how the one way system must affect the businesses stranded on the island created by the triangle of one way streets, I also occasionally cycle up Camberwell Grove then down Chadwick Road, forgetting that at the bottom the option is either to cycle all the way round the system or illegally mount the pavement to go the few yards to Bellenden road (or get off an walk) - all options seeming stupid in one way or other and all in the interests of cars being able to speed up for a few metres...

As for the streets being narrow, it seems that the one way streets are the wide streets with plenty of room for two way traffic and parking.

[Chiara]

Southwark Council?s proposal to revert the one way section of Lyndhurst Way and Bellenden Road into two way traffic would be hugely expensive, and likely to exacerbate the situation, rather than alleviate it.

I have looked at the plans on Southwark Council?s website - I was one of many people who were unaware of the public consultation on 13 March. I could see immediately that the plans are basically flawed, and moreover inaccurate. Chadwick Road has been confused with Holly Grove. I cannot see the logic of turning Bellenden Road between Holly Grove and Highshore Road into a two way cul de sac. Anyone wanting to have vehicle access will have to do a 3 point turn on the narrow road to get out again. This will include the minibus that takes elderly and sometimes disabled residents to Elim House day centre, and needs to get right to the door.

Bellenden Road and the area around has been plagued by road works over the last 2-3 years, from various gas and water companies, and at times we have been unable to cross Bellenden Road shopping area because of the road work barriers. There are going to be more upheavals with the laying of new sewage pipes. Now here is a proposal promising further upheaval for no discernible benefit. All we need are well defined crossings at strategic junctions.

[Eileen]

I am posting this at the request of a local resident who has no access to the web forum at the moment, but who wishes to contribute to the discussion. Eileen

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1. The Southwark consultation on these changes has been extremely disappointing. Poorly publicised (not even to the Bellenden Residents' Group). And including maps with roads mis-named (Holly Grove mistaken for CHadwick Rd) This does not suggest the council have thought things through carefully.

2. I live on Highshore Rd and use these roads a lot (by car, on foot, and on bike). I do not think Southwark has understood sufficiently how these roads are used and by what traffic and when. I am therefore wanting to object to the proposed changes. A few specific reasons follow:

? I understand the reason for the proposed changes to be mainly about speed of traffic in London in places with single carriageway traffic. I do not believe there to be a major problem in speed of traffic either on the northern end of Bellenden Rd going north, or the more southerly bit going south (by entrance to Blenheim Grove)

? I believe the changes proposed will simply make the whole area an even bigger 'rat-run' from Peckham High St down Lyndhurst Way. The one-way system with single carriageway traffic acts as a deterrent to heavy traffic cutting through.

? Crucially, there is very significant traffic on Bellenden Rd (between Holly Grove and Highshore Rd) related to the Elim Daycare Centre (and to a lesser degree the St James' Catholic Church hall). Minibuses and cars arrive throughout the day to transport elderly users of the Centre, and these need to park next to the entrance due to disability needs. When there are large events at Elim House (these are frequent, sometimes during the day sometimes in the evening) there is very considerable traffic: sometimes there are 30-40 cars parked locally. If Bellenden Rd was blocked off at the north end, I do not see how on earth this daily and event-related traffic could be accomodated. The road is narrow, and when cars are parked down the side there is no way that cars could turn around so that they could drive off in a southerly direction. It would be horrendous.

? I think the corner of Chadwick Rd where it meets Bellenden Rd (a very tight corner) will be a major area of hold-up and congestion for vehicles under the new plan. There are also implications for pedestrians. Currently the traffic actually flows reasonably smoothly here, and although provision for pedestrians needs improving, as a pedestrian the direction of traffic is at least only in one direction and therefore easy to read and anticipate. If you want to slow traffic down Bellenden Rd (past entrance to Blenheim Grove) you could do so by putting provision for more car parking spaces. This would have the added benefit of contributing to economic regeneration of the area, which needs a lot more support in terms of thoughtful provision of spaces for those wanting to shop locally.

[edhistory]

Chiara Wrote:

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

> Now here is a

> proposal promising further upheaval for no

> discernible benefit.

The contractor will benefit.

John K

[James Barber]

One way streets usually result in faster traffic.

Faster traffic is often a deterrent to people cycling and walking.

So the aim of reverting to two way operation is in my opinion good - assuming encouraging walking and cycling is good.

When I'm cycling I avoid the area even though it avoids Dog Kennel Hill. So I rarely pass Bellenden shops. The current roads to me a confident cyclists feels dangerous.

But I don't live on these streets and it does soundalike the consultation hasn't been done well.

So how would people make that area safer and calm traffic and ideally remove one way streets?

[jimmyraj]

I live just off Bellenden Road and cycle, walk and drive that way frequently. It's a shame there wasn't better publicity about the public meeting as it might have been a good opportunity to better discuss the pros and cons. As a cyclist, I can see some benefits in the scheme - riding up from the old canal, up Bellenden, is a nightmare as you have to cycle up a one way street and then past a particularly dangerous junction at the Prince Albert/Chadwick bit. As others have stated, drivers do hare it up from Ganapati towards the shopping parade, and where the road kinks with the traffic island next to Fenton Walsh I often feel as a pedestrian rather scared that a car will mount the pavement at that point.

Having said all of that, it's a bit of a joke for the consultation doc to talk up the 'natural traffic calming' of the parade of shops. What that means in practice is a complete nightmare if you're driving as there's no enforcement of people parking on the single and double yellows which means traffic bottlenecks and frequently comes to a complete standstill - especially when the p13 tries to navigate it.

In the con column is also the potential cost. At a time of massive budgetary cuts, is this a genuinely good use of funding? I've been trying to lobby Southwark for three years just to get Choumert Road resurfaced as it's full of pot holes, dips and loose Tarmac, but with no success. If they can't afford to do basic repairs to other roads in the area, why attempt a major public infrastructure project for questionably small benefit.

[camberlou]

I live near the southern stretch of roads in question and use it pretty much everyday. My sense is that traffic goes much too fast. Following the discussion on 20mph speed limits across the borough, and on Lordship Lane specifically, I tried deliberately driving at 20mph for a few weeks. Without fail, on both Lyndhurst Way and on Bellenden Road (between Ganapati and the Prince Albert) I was hooted by the car behind or had them driving right on my tail. So IMHO anything that slows the traffic in this area is a good thing.

As a pedestrian, I notice there are very few crossing points. Getting to Peckham Rye station from the western end of Chadwick Road is one way of waking up the senses in the morning - there are no crossing points for pedestrians without considerable diversion (and yes, when you are on foot a 5 minute diversion is too far). I've also noticed walking home from Lidl from the north end of Bellenden Rd that there are no pedestran crossing points. Again, crossing at the corner where Ganapati is, I feel I'm taking my life in my hands

As a cyclist, I find the one way system frustrating, as it makes for a long way round, as mentioned by Jimmy above. Also, not being able to get from the north end of Bellenden without looping round, adds a unneccesary amount of time to my journey. With the new cycle superhighway along Peckham Road coming soon, there will likely be more cyclists using this route.

I largely support the changes. Southwark has one of the lowest levels of car ownership in the country, so I think that prioritising pedestrian and cycle safety, comfort and speed is the right way to go. I know nothing about road planning, but I do know that I don't feel safe walking around this area because of the speed of the traffic. If the council are proposing changes to address this, I'm all for them.

[Eileen]

If you haven't expressed your views there is still time to do so in this exercise until 12 April. See the first post in this topic for the details, and do post here as well so we can continue the collective public discussion.

This is a brief report on what next. From local email exchanges as well as the posts on this topic here, there is now considerable evidence that the consultation on these traffic proposals has been deeply flawed.

We propose to ask the Council to produce the further information we have always asked for about safety improvements with the one way system, and comparative costs between that and their two way proposals, and to have a well facilitated public event with that information. That would give time also to publicise it properly and ensure that those who are affected have a chance to take part in an informed discussion.

The local police support this request for more information and further consultation, as they heard about it only from us. Maybe other important bodies have also missed out.

If you want a copy of a recent local email with more details please send a 'Reply via Private Message (PM)'.

[Huggers]

Can I echo the concerns re the huge hedge on corner of Bellenden Road and Blenheim Grove too, it's a hazard.

[tomchance]

I have submitted an objection to this proposal. I think it will do very little to reduce road danger, it only has one useful suggestion to help cyclists (the bollard closing off a section of Bellenden Road to motorists), and the benefits to pedestrians will be modest. The expense and work make most parts of the scheme yet another wasteful and disruptive project.

It would be much better if the council could be bold enough to review the whole area in light of their own policies in order to *reduce* access for motorists to encourage more walking and cycling, calm all the streets to reduce speeds and rat running, make the shopping part of Bellenden Road somewhere genuinely pleasant to walk about, and so on. Instead we have another proposal that fiddles about at great expense while still trying to improve access for everyone. You can't please everyone, you have to decide what the streets are for! Is Bellenden a residential area where people wander to the cafe, cycle to do some shopping and occasionally drive when necessary, or not?

Incidentally, I know that Southwark Cyclists and Southwark Living Streets submitted a response fully supporting the proposals. I was canvassed for my views as a member of the Southwark Cyclists e-group and, along with one other member, made a number of points against the proposals but these weren't reflected in the SC response.

[tomchance]

camberlou Wrote:

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

> As a cyclist, I find the one way system

> frustrating, as it makes for a long way round, as

> mentioned by Jimmy above. Also, not being able to

> get from the north end of Bellenden without

> looping round, adds a unneccesary amount of time

> to my journey.

The council could simply make all the streets two-way for cyclists but not for cars, as is already the case with part of Highshore Road. The bollard at the top of the narrow part of Bellenden Road would already help with this.

The council's proposals are actually to improve access for cars as well. It's crazy, and if you agree you should submit a response objecting but noting the parts you like. Councillors and officers will often just look at the topline figure of objectors/supporters rather than reading all the caveats. I was stung by this responding to another daft scheme on Peckham Rye. Scroll to the bottom of this: http://tom.acrewoods.net/2012/04/04/southwarks-cycling-revolution/

[richard tudor]

The current system works and has stood the test of time. Spend the money else where where it would be appreciated.