Earl Aelfheah

Southwark woods doesn't exist. How many threads have you started about this now?

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They both sound like horrific people, but this is > not news worthy. This

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > what about if you're working on your own house - > is there a rule governing when you can do that > i.e. drill in your own house at 6.53am ? Why would anyone want to start drilling at 6.53am?

I don't know about other networks, but I'm on Three and have never personally had any problem with reception.

If Crystal Palace Rd residents ask for the same, they'll get it? And those on Whateley perhaps? What about Barry Road - it's certainly more dangerous. Has the council identified MG as a priority for intervention through an assessment of traffic across the local area? It still sounds like reactive, fragmented and poorly considered decision making - the allocation of resources based on who makes the most noise rather any sort of strategic planning or thought.

Classic Lofts

ed_pete Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 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. the phrase rat-run is itself pretty tabloid in style.

@Melbourneresident - thanks for coming on here and putting across your point of view. I do think it would be helpful for more of those who signed the petition to do the same. I am interested in details of the police data - when and how it was carried out. I walked home last night at rush hour, the full length of Melbourne grove, and was passed by only 2 cars and 1 van all travelling very slowly. It appears (at least from my regular perambulations) like a relatively quiet street - although I appreciate this is only one persons subjective experience of it. Anyway, I wonder whether there are specific problems at specific times of day, which is why it would be interesting to get more info re the police data and how it was gathered. It wouldn't surprise me if there were significant incidence of 'rat running' during the extended period of road works on Lordship Lane this summer - so it would be good to know whether or not the police data was gathered during this time. Anyway, as I say, I think it's positive that you're putting your point of view across and I agree that personal attacks or attempts to single out particular residents does not progress the debate.

I notice that TFL again highlight that "....in order for the Bakerloo line extension to be progressed, further development along the proposed route is required. It is unlikely the extension can happen without this new development." I suspect that regardless of any consultation, the Old Kent Road route will happen. I am sure there are already developers rubbing their hands together at the thought of all the public money they can leverage and working out the best way to minimise any 'affordable' housing obligations.

This would annoy me no end, not because of the money as such, but the principle of it - the lack of thought / consideration on behalf of your new neighbours. That said, I don't think there is much you can do about it really, unless you really want to end up on bad terms with them (which I'm sure you don't). I would probably try to forget about it and move on (I know this is easier said that done).

No, it's amazing, enjoy.

Whilst it?s quite possible that a barrier on this road may be appropriate / positive, I don?t think we can even begin to debate the matter seriously without a clear rationale, based on some proper comparative data and an idea of how it would tie in with plans across the wider area. I am all in favour of reducing car use in town - improving public transport and getting more people using their bikes. I am not against radical interventions to achieve some of this, including road closures where it's part of a coherent strategy (for example, to create proper quiet routes for cyclists and pedestrians into the centre). What does annoy me about this proposal though, is the fact that it seems to be predicated almost entirely on the wishes of a small number of people with a vested interest in the outcome. It does not seem to me that a view has been taken about traffic issues across the area and as a result, this road identified as an appropriate candidate for closure. I get frustrated at what I perceive to be a disjointed, reactive and knee jerk approach from the council. The Council shouldn?t just be acting in areas where a group of residents make the most noise or are the most organised, the should be acting strategically, planning and managing traffic across the whole area.

mikeb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This Ros Atkins? > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ros_Atkins I don't think it's helpful to pick on individual residents or to personalise the debate.

I would love to see more traffic police targeting speeding and dangerous drivers. Instead we just get humps and road closures.

.

Forgive me if this has already been posted somewhere on this thread - but has anyone got a link, or any further info on the survey which is purported to show that "76% of vehicles were speeding along Melbourne Grove". I personally find it very hard to believe.

I often walk home down Melbourne Grove (am I allowed to do that, or is walking on 'someone elses' street rat scuttling?). It had never occurred to me that this was a particularly busy road, or that there was a problem with excessive speed. In fact the reason I walk this way is that it always seemed like a quiet route. Anyway, since this thread began I've been giving more attention to it. Now I know this is a completely partial and subjective observation, but a few things have struck me about the traffic on MG. It is a narrow street and it's difficult for two cars to pass each other at any type of speed. There are also speed cushions. What is noticeable however (now that I have had my attention specifically turned to it) is the number of motorbikes which do seem to go down the road pretty quickly. This makes sense as they are not impacted by the speed cushions (which don't got right across the road) or the narrowness of the road. I wonder whether speed surveys (when done using those monitoring strips across the road), differentiate between bikes and cars / vans? I have no idea, but it would be interesting to know. The reason I say this is that if bikes account for a significant proportion of the speeding traffic (assuming there is a lot of speeding traffic - I personally remain unconvinced of this), then the 'solutions' may be very different to those applied to cars, or larger vehicles.

The UK response to desperate people fleeing a war zone, is shameful.

It's gone over 100

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Someone tole me there was an article in The Times > (which I do not subscribe to) that all the Boris > buses in service will have no conductors. Would > love to know what Heatherwick, the man behind the > design, things of that. > http://www.valshawcross.com may be able to help > anyone who wants to complain about the buses or > offer suggestions. Yep. Heard this too. So the 'hop on, hop off' feature will be completely removed. What is left is an extremely expensive folly / vanity project.

That seems ridiculous. I certainly haven't received such a letter.

I may land a plane on Lordship Lane - a reasonable response to the lack of a local airstrip I think we can all agree.

Blah Blah - where would you put this dirt track out of interest? I imagine those living near to it will be delighted to hear and smell the two stroke engines whining all away all day. Also, I think it's naive to think that the cat and mouse game with police, helicopters whirling overhead and the donning of balaclava's etc is not part of the thrill. Building a dirt track isn't going to solve anything.

Yeah, its all about a dearth of youth clubs. Pull the other one.

Eric bristow