Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I thought it was because parts of the bridge fell onto the platform below: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/410610/141023_R232014_Denmark_Hill.pdf


Having read the report however, this turns out not to be the current reason for closure. Unfortunately can't help with when it might reopen but there has certainly been some activity behind the barriers of late.


Edited to correct my error. From the report:


"58 The incident bridge was closed to road traffic by Network Rail in August 2014, and remained closed to road traf c at the publication date of this RAIB report, for a reason which is unrelated to defects in the concrete cladding of the bridge beams."

  • 2 months later...
It doesn't directly effect me, but the principle irks me. When the bridge on Camberwell Grove closed, we were told that the width / weight restrictions put in would be temporary. The bridge never fully re-opened. Now a bridge a little further along has also been closed. It seems the infrastructure is just allowed to deteriorate over time. Where's the accountability?

Seems that Southwark Council believe that the bridge is closed due to cracking - minutes of 9 Sep 2015 meeting


http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/g5083/Printed%20minutes%20Wednesday%2009-Sep-2015%2019.00%20Camberwell%20Community%20Council.pdf?T=1


Q4. A resident asked when would Windsor Walk be re-opened to traffic. In response, Councillor Mark Williams, explained that the bridge over Windsor Walk was cracked and Network Rail had to get a new one built which was taking time.

mikeb Wrote:

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

> A resident asked when would Windsor Walk be

> re-opened to traffic. In response, Councillor Mark

> Williams, explained that the bridge over Windsor

> Walk was cracked and Network Rail had to get a new

> one built which was taking time.


The same thing was said about Camberwell Grove and it never fully reopened. If the bridge if cracked as a result of the huge trucks and heavy machinery used in the developments on Windsor Walk, I do hope that some contribution from the builders will be levied.


In my opinion, if Network Rail cannot or will not repair / maintain the road bridges, then control should be passed over to someone else.

  • 1 month later...
  • 2 weeks later...
As a pedestrian and cyclist I have very much enjoyed the absence of traffic swooping round the corner and down that road as a cut through....particularly during rush hours when there are lots of people trying to get to/ from their train (or to the Phoenix pub)! But I guess this has been a gifted period of peace that shouldn't really have been......
The closure of Windsor Walk is a pain but the restriction on Camberwell Grove is great. We used to live in a flat near the top and experienced it before and after the restriction. The fact that lorries and large vehicles can't use it is great and it's much less of a rat run than it used to be. You can still use it in a car without any problems.
Not really the point though. Just because some people prefer the restrictions, this shouldn't be the way they're implemented.. Just by the inaction / incompetence of national rail. If a road is to be closed it should be done as part of a delineate decision, taken thoughtfully and in consultation with the public.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, AFAICS, the "civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300" were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...