Charles Notice

With regard to your comment "To be implemented by 1st April they no doubt have contracts already signed for the works." Have other people who use Dulwich Park noticed that Conway is now going round re-doing the kerb stones to allow wheel chair access. This was something people raised at the time of the works. Why no access. As the original contractors were not Conway why could these works not have been done as part of the original works? If you are fitting and laying new pavements and kerb stones, do you really need another contractor to do additional works? Southwark say they have no money but the way they work does not make sense. Using up funds before the end of the financial year or kids in charge who do not have a clue about commercial contracts.

The question asked was how residential were the above roads? If you feel Champion Hill was heavily residential and quote all your numbers why can the numbers not be known for the above to draw some kind of comparison. It could be people may not be on the EDF so do not put their views forward. As Champion Hill is closed that could be why there is no traffic as to get down to Denmark Hill you have to use the above roads. Was it not half term around the date of your picture? Out of interest what was the traffic like at the DKH/Grove Lane junction down to Denmark Hill?

How many people/houses are there on Grove Hill Road, Bromar Road, Pytchley Road, Quorn Road, Malfort Road, Ivanhoe Road together with all the flats on to the the DKH estate that now have the pleasure of the road closure? Now that would be interesting.

Paul Lupton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What a nightmare this simple road closure is > turning into > > First, I had no idea there was a consultation - > why don?t they do one (properly for regular road > users) - under 80 people resonded to th official > consultation (I read) > > 2nd there are no signs indicating it is blocked > off especially at Dog Kennel Hill lights by the > school so me and other countless vehicles > (including a Southwark Councillorry) had to turn > round at the cycle lane - warning there?s a camera > for any misdemeanours ! > > 3. How is this improving traffic flow ? At 9:30am, > a journey to a gardening client took 20 mins and > normally takes 5 mins - the traffic jam at the > Denmark Hill Stan traffic lights was further back > than the George Canning PH > > Surely this can?t be permanent ? > > Anyone have any info as to whom to complain to ? > > I?m just fed up of London Co7ncils making driving > for all more and more ridiculous - if you can?t > park any where they just close or block off a > really handy locals routs - we are constantly > being forced down the main road route with endless > queues, frustration and costs. > > Is it me? > Paul Lupton Garden Services I have written many times to Eleanor Kelly, Peter John and Richard Livingstone about this who have never deemed to acknowledge my emails. No have they asked Southwark officers to respond. I last wrote asking why Rupert Jones idea of a short closure during rush hour was never put up as an option. Again no response. Southwark Officers have no idea how the area works only a ill thought out plan by children to inflict the master plan against moving traffic. If our local Cllr cannot be bothered to respond, still they do not have to worry for another 4 years until election time what hope is there. I suspect it does not fit in with their agenda. It was a great pity Ian Wingfield was deselected at least he knew the area.

I wish you well. Since "CHAZ" retired the area has been lacking a local mens hairdresser. Good luck

How many people does 71% represent, how many people actually voted, how many people voted yes and how many people voted no. Unless this is declared the result is not worth the paper it is printed on. As this looks like turning into a usual RendHarris thread of on and on and on till you decide to give up because it will just go on and on, whether you believe you have a valid reason for posting I will cede you the winner. I believe that this closure is madness but it meets Southwark's overall plan of controlling motor car usage so in the end they will win. This thread is over for me. Perhaps others might like to take it up? May be those that live in the area effected by the closure who will have to use the new routes home.

"Perhaps they even thought that residents' views matter more than people who want it preserved as a rat run so they can shave 100 seconds off their journey from one area to another? Controversial but I think I can almost see their reasoning." As it is most residents that use this road to leave and reach there homes I find that hard to believe they want it closed. Please supply the figures that confirm this.

The majority of people (57%) within the consultation area were in support of the trial with 71% of residents in Champion Hill in support. Facts, jolly inconvenient, aren't they? How many people does 71% represent? Like RPH how many said yes and how many said no. Please supply.

You do not live there any more. No first hand experience only second hand opinions. No need to reply unless you have up to date personnel information. Just noticed the errors.

I think that this closure is not needed at all. Have Southwark conducted any recent studies as to the current traffic conditions and all round environmental aspects before closing this road junction. It appears that they are doing it without any up to date information. I have just looked at my journey from passing though Camberwell Green, which is always bad, to Champion Hill/Arnold Avenue which is just past the closure and to get there is ill thought out and not a lot of thought has gone into it. I am being pushed through residential roads which are off the most environmental direct route to get why I need to be. Increasing my time on the road in a major way. Have people looked at a map to see how residents need to get to their homes and how others will be effected. Rendel Harris wrote. "in 2016 the road was neither pleasant nor safe, particularly at rush hour. As someone who worked from home with my desk at a window overlooking the junction, I feel I might have a better overall view of how the street worked than someone only using it once or twice a day." You moved sometime ago, how do you know what the conditions are now 24/7? No doubt your views have not changed. I would like to see an up to date recent report why this has to go ahead. Other posters have asked but have received zero response. I do not subscribe to Southwark's "we have figures"(old) this is what we are going to do, old figures dont worry" Like the Government slip in bad news or unsupportable news whilst a major event is taking place people will miss it. i.e the current CPZ. If it was needed I would support it 100%, it is not speaking to residents they do not want it or see why it is needed.

Lets hope common sense prevails and the ULEZ remains within the congestion charge area only and not within the whole of the North/South Circulars. It appears many people are not aware.

jimlad48 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The pay and display bays are a small number of the > overall bays (e.g. most streets will have a > couple). There is a maximum stay per vehicle of > about 4 hours per day usually. you cannot park all > day. > > We went to a CPZ last year and overnight went from > being a drastically overcrowded area to a street > where parking utilisation is rarely more than > 50-60% of the spaces available. The only time we > see pressure is at the weekend when the > restrictions dont apply - funny that! > > Stand by for your parking life to become > unbelievably better soon. With regard to your comment, on my daily walk this morning I started to take notice of all the new CPZ signs going up for DKH CPZ in those areas that are not an all day CPZ. On walking up lower Chadwick Road from the Rye Lane car park, which is an all day CPZ, then crossing to Chadwick Road up towards Grove Park, the whole North side is going to be a 11-1 CPZ with park and pay signs and at the top both sides of the bridge will be a park and pay CPZ. The Southside is showing a resident only parking CPZ 11-1. So one could say the above has reduced true resident only parking by 50%. On going through Grove Park it is resident CPZ parking. So it would seem Southwark is targeting those roads who do not have a vocal and powerful resident base to resist to turn these into a money machine. Grove Park joins Camberwell Grove which is an all day CPZ. Walking further these pay and park areas seem to be everywhere. How many residents that are in for example Chadwick Road and other roads that are in the DKH CPZ are aware of these new parking rules. Perhaps people like me when they walk should take a look at the signs that are going up in the DKH CPZ, you could be in for a big and not wanted surprise. I wonder why Southwark is only allowing 11-1 CPZ's regardless of what people want and voted for or what they thought they voted for. Unless people have to physically remove cars between 11-1 I cannot see resident benefit. I thought 11-1 CPZ's were proposed to achieve this and free up resident parking. Will Southwark be policing and checking every road for payment and for parking permits as no paper permit is visible? Dont believe in what you thought you had voted for.

Children going to the library, cars parked up on his work area, vehicles cutting the corner, single lane traffic up to the builders yard. More pedestrian safe space needed as people cannot look. Before this development there was plenty of room for all. I hope they do not find reasons to close it.

How long before the tyre business is shut down due to health and safety when the library is fully operating.

You have not disappointed.

What is really sad is the present Council staff do not accept the knowledge of older residents, most new residents are not interested and do not reply to any survey. Most people do not go to Southwark Web sites to see what Southwark is proposing nor do they walk looking at things pinned to lamp posts It would be interesting to see the results of the survey. How many surveys were sent out, how many replied, how many yes or no's to the proposal. So what looks good on paper to their untested plans does not represent how things really work in the overall scheme of things. Having worked in Local Authority after the private sector, once an idea is raised and it meets what most those round the table want, whether it is right, they will pass it through if it meets a current popular fad. Champion Hill is a tried and tested route which works. It is only busy for a very limited period of time morning and evening. In fact when I have have ever used it it has been very quiet. Unfortunately due to all the recent re-organisation in Southwark those staff with the in depth knowledge of how things work and argue against with knowledge have gone. Camberwell Grove Bridge has reopened and there does not seem any problem with traffic and pollution, Champion Hill has minimal traffic for a small part of the day. Why this scheme. I have a feeling an answer will already be winging its way from a certain quarter.

If this trial is allowed to just go ahead for a year it will be pretty certain it will remain in place for ever. Have you ever known Southwark to rescind anything? "I asked Joanna how pollution levels would be monitored on DKH, Grove Lane, Champion Park, Pythchley and Bromar Roads during the trial. She said they wouldn?t be monitoring as such, only deduced from traffic levels." Says it all really a stitch up in the making.

How many other pensioners will be in the same situation regarding their only "extravagance" due to this ill thought out scheme. Many will not be able to afford to get a new extravagance. Inner circular roads should be exempt only the inner city congestion zone should be involved.

bookstamper Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I saw this the this they attempted to steal a > builders bike he came out of the house screaming > and a hammer in his hand > They turned on him with a what looked like a > machete and was screaming call the police, very > upsetting these guys are so brazen in broad > daylight and so near to Hebert school when the > kids are coming out Is there a discription of the perps so we can be wary of our surroundings

If this is the case, why cannot the Council, Police etc just let them go in wait to see them dumping and Nick them? Or would that effect their human rights.

That explains when I passed this morning all visible number plates were covered up whilst they were off loading rubbish.

Even if you say no to a CPZ if other streets say yes Southwark will say we will have to include your street as it will impose greater parking stress on others not in a CPZ. If 99 people say no and 100 people say yes, majority wins you will lose. You cannot win.

Not if you have 2 hour one as anyone can park before and after these times. Full day would put a stop to unwanted parking.

"To be honest there is little tangible difference > from all day to 2hr. A lot of people were worried, > but we have found that the big parking pressure > was from commuters parking all day, not people > nipping in and out." You still have not explained why you took all day no parking and not just 2 hours. Seems like a case of "I'm alright jack"

"Subject: FW: Camberwell Grove bridge Dear Mr Notice Thank you for your email for which Councillor Wingfield has asked me to respond with respect to the new signs that have been recently erected. The signs were erected on Thursday and Friday last week and were to replace the signs that were located on various A frames and other street furniture on the diversion route associated with the current closure of Camberwell Grove at the railway bridge. This was for three reasons: 1. To reduce the costs incurred by the council for the ongoing hire and daily maintenance checks 2. Now that the weather is becoming more wintery, I had some concern that the A frame based signs, even where weighted with sandbags, could become dislodged or be blown into the carriageway presenting a hazard for drivers and pedestrians 3. I have received reports that the signs were being removed or relocated by persons unknown Residents should on no account be concerned that the more permanent nature of the signs is for any other reason than that stated above, and most certainly not in any anticipation of the result of the current and ongoing consultation. I would reiterate that the new signs are in place purely on safety and economic grounds. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you should require any further information on the above. Regards Dale Foden" Who do you believe?