Charles Notice

It is a very safe route. How many accidents have happened over the last 30 years? People really should grow up. Perhaps we are talking about a different Greendale. 95% of Greendale is like a dual carriageway. Reminds me of Melbourne Grove just moved in let's change to make it to I want. Appreciate the dream a country walk into Dulwich Village. House appreciation. Why did the Council spend a vast sum of money on a pedestrian pavement just recently to give people a safe passage. Common sense and aware as to what is going around. 5 scooters a day.? Carnage

As a long time local of the Prince Albert on Bellenden Road, greatly regretted the passing of the old pub but have to say if you want a local that is child free and invites reinvention of a local this is the pub. It is your hipster free, yummy mummy how super this is venue. It is not the Victoria, Montpelier but a blank canvas to be built on. It would be a great shame if real locals did not return. Don't bitch if you cannot support what could be a local for us oldsters.

I have never seen motor vehicles drive down agree dale for perhaps 40 years. The cycle path is wide enough to take a 40 foot articlorry. Motorcycles/scooters have always used Greendale Just how many scooters/motorcycles actually use this route. Would have thought Lycra people pose far more danger. Have you just bought one of the new flats on Wanley Road? Can understand your position if this is the case. It would seem common sense and consideration has all but disappeared these days. The concern re Greendale/Townley Road is a classic. Been using this junction since I was a child and still managed to survive.

If pedestrians have their own designated walkway, why not? Motorbikes, scooters pedestrians have always coexisted on green dale until now. Since when has it been designated just a cycle path only. Just how many scooters etc vehicles use this route. If a gnat farted these days there would be uproar in ED and surrounds. Still the hood has changed and I suppose you must go along with the new thinking.

siousxiesue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've seen this and mentioned it to a patrolling > officer once. Wonder if 'friends of' Greendale > could suggest anything? There have also been > instances of burnt out bikes being dumped in the > big field along there. Who should be allowed to use it? Cyclist only. There is a pedestrian path all the way down, why this alarmist post. People should really grow up Thank god I am reaching 3 score and ten and do not have to worry about this rubbish

If the plans have been submitted and approved in the correct manner and deemed to be acceptable by all parties why would they want to submit other plans because some people do not approve. The plans would have been costed for the approved scheme so will dissenters indemnify the developers for loss of profit and redesign of all building plans.

It would have been appreciated if our local powers that be had given a heads up after all the posting on this matter. Still if you are a motorist why would you be told. You are there to be milked Intend intend after a month to put in a freedom of information request to see how much these cameras have produced.

How do you know people are not doing this? you only get to hear when it creeps in to Council Meetings for approval or handouts. Cllrs are not likely to put it out to the wider world to oppose if they are in favour.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Jenny1, > The noise issues from bumps is mostly from raised > treatment - where the whole cross roads is raised > e.g. junction of Melbourne Grove with East Dulwich > Grove, Barry Road with Goodrich Road. But full > bumps do sometimes cause problem especially if not > precisely installed. > > I'm pretty sure the petition was about closing the > road but good to double check. If you are backing this proposal I would have thought you should have known 100% what the petition actually said.

As an ex employee is it really as bad as you indicate. How much do Leaseholders not know?

I am amazed there are that number of business in those buildings. Where are they and what do they do?

fazer71 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I still don't see any benefit in changing the > junction other than putting back the two lane exit > from Townley rd. > I believe that all road users are fully familiar > with the existing layout cars cyclists children > etc . > After years of using this junction we are all > fine. > > My fear is any major changes will result in > increased risk to the most vulnerable and is more > likely to result in our worst fears! > > This all appears to be an experiment at great cost > to the tax payer for the benefit of nobody other > than the contractor and keeping Southwark staff > busy. > > > If it's not broken don't fix it! > > If it needs tweaking then tweak. > > Such major surgery with unknown outcome or what > appear to be worst outcomes makes absolutely no > sense. > > > > > > Besides this being a license for Conway to print > money. > > It is a potential killer not a life saver due to > users having to adapt to major changes! Hear hear

Unfortunately Spock has died so no logical answer will be available. Live long and prosper(no doubt Southwark will with new thought up fines)

They are all over the place. Cllr Barber was asked to supply details of where the 44 monitoring places where sited when the 20 mph first came up. He has not done so perhaps they are part of this. There are a few as you come down Dog Kennel Hill and into Sainsbury,s.

Tessmo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hello, James > > I can see what you're saying. But this is a > junction that's been changed, at great expense, so > many times - and the first proposal the council > came up with provoked extraordinarily strong > opposition. Maybe it's time to be a little more > conservative (with a small 'c' - I know you're a > Lib Dem) and go for something that definitely > works? I came across this comment and the sentiment expressed would cover this whole mess. How very true, just use common sense. messageRe: Consultation on ?improving? the junction of East Dulwich Grove, Townley Road and Green Dale Posted by spider69 27 November, 2014 09:13 With regard to the proposal for this crossing I would like to put forward a very radical and possible live changing suggestion. If you are coming down Greendale and want to get to Townley Road and feel nervous just get of your bike and use the crossing facing Alleyns School. Alternatively if you want to cycle towards Herne Hill again get off the bike and use the crossing by the James Alleyn Girls to reach the road. .If you are coming Townley Road and want to go towards East Dulwich and feel nervous use the crossing and then proceed. No doubt the cycling brethren will insist they should be able to go anywhere willy-nilly without thinking. The same applies to our motorised drivers. You could even push your bike on the pavement to either school from these points if you are a child. As I have said it is a very radical suggestion and would need the application of common sense which seems to be lacking in many things these days, it would also save a great deal of money. I have been using this route since I was able to on a bike for almost 60 years in safety and am what you would call a local who has managed to survive. I cannot see why people cannot be responsible for their own actions in every day life. Unfortunately many local decisions are taken by faceless Southwark Officers after a single complaint and committees you never hear of in the local real world

Back in July 2013 Channel 4 did a programme called Undercover Boss which featured the Chief Executive of Southwark Eleanor Kelly who went undercover to sort out Southwarks problems. Bit contrived in all departments. Ask them to make a return visit/programme

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "but honestly Rye Lane is not involved in the > dropping off /picking up scenario ." > > Thought I had agreed with that? > > What I went on to say as that the smaller roads > which will take the extra traffic will be > affected. Also, the dropoff/pickup point will > generate enough traffic to indirectly affect Rye > Lane . But I agree - RL isn't the primary focal > point What extra traffic? The Holly grove next to Rye Lane is always packed with white vans and stalls and also goes nowhere but so you would be mad to try this. But the Bellenden Road/holly Grove presents no problem and is also targeted zealously.

Lowlander Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you need to drop off / pick up then Denmark > Hill is easier (or East/North Dulwich) > > Peckham Rye and Rye Lane are terrible for > traffic.. It would help if people looked at Google maps and see what they are actually commenting on. you would then see that dropping people off is not a problem more a problem at the above stations. Holly Grove. Car stops, cases/people out, goodbyes then gone.For Southwak.. Kerching Cannot enter except from Bellenden Road

Perhaps they could put up a large sign that says drop off point 10 minutes only allowed and have the camera monitor If you are still around the car how can you cause an obstruction. Southwark just recently have had great experience in sign erection so it should not present any technical problems As Jeremy has pointed out they lack consideration and common sense. Perhaps after their recently held one to one employment assessments with managers they have been told to up their game

It's a money generating exercise only. Do not forget the overhead camera where they can see you dropping people off. The road goes nowhere and is the only place to drop people off. They should take a look a Rye Lane or Blenheim Grove. Thought not

Perhaps you could get the national press and TV to expose the quality of work that you are being charged for these works. You could invite the Chief Executive along with the head of Homeownership to take part as she likes appearing on TV documentaries to comment Do not forget at the end of the day Southwark has the option to take you to court and require your mortgage lender to settle when they get judgement.

Those voting against were more than those in favour. So not carried. Most people have much more important things to worry about than pet adgenda,s from like minded Council Officers thought up behind closed doors

BrandNewGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well, that was an intemperate little rant. > Personally I think we should be vigilant about > what those we elect into power do. That's > democracy, innit? Careful. The poster will come round and let your tyres down to stop you getting to your protest group as he reckons he can get away with it

Quite true. But I cannot see the vast majority of Southwark residents trolling through Southwarks web site looking at what the Council is proposing to slip through or looking closely at local Council ads in local papers that are more advertisement than news carriers. They are more concerned with earning a wage to survive. ED is not Southwark who do not have a forum like this. Loud I am important voices do seem to carry meetings at local government meetings in my experience. Even more if the local Cllr is harassed by a small pressure group.

Tessmo Well put and on the money