Camberwell Grove rail bridge consultation

[Bopster]

Siduhe Wrote:

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

> The consultation closed two days ago - is this

> when the signs first went up? If so, that implies

> an astonishing disregard for the consultation

> process.

I think the signs must have gone up on friday. Although possibly sat.

[rendelharris]

Then despite my having a different POV to most here, that stinks. Are they really permanent?

[Siduhe]

LynnB Wrote:

> I have also found this to be my experience in one

> previous local consultation.

> I think people need to remember this when they

> vote for local councillors, and make your

> displeasure known now so that they are aware of

> it.

I just asked James Barber if he could raise this with Southwark.

[Charles Notice]

"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?

[Nigello]

I believe the person who has put his name to an official document, probably knowing the background to the controversy. Called me old fashioned, but I do.

[Siduhe]

The explanation doesn't make commercial sense to me at all (why would you install new signs just at the point you finalise a consultation which could, in theory, lead to the bridge being reopened?), but I also tend to believe it's a true and real explanation - and it's good news for those of us who like to believe that consultations do have an impact.

The timing just sucks and I can't believe they didn't think about how it would look though.

[peckham_ryu]

Siduhe Wrote:

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

> The explanation doesn't make commercial sense to

> me at all (why would you install new signs just at

> the point you finalise a consultation which could,

> in theory, lead to the bridge being reopened?),

At first sight seems odd, but then again it?s sensible in the long run. They need to replace the signs, and don?t yet know whether that?s temporary or forever. Using the ?forever? wording means no need to change again (at more cost) later, and if the decision is not curved then you were always going to have to remove the signs anyway so no harm done. Good commercial foresight.

Now, let?s get that bridge open :)

[Penguin68]

Even if the decision goes in favour of reopening it is most unlikely the bridge will be sufficiently repaired to open the road to limited traffic in under 6 months - so I suspect the new signage will 'cost-in' even if it is later removed - it will have to be replaced anyway with some signage about weight restrictions etc.

But for those wishing to scrutinise the decision making process here - keep on scrutinising. The simple move now would be to support the status quo (bridge closed) and do nothing. In which case, let's not keep it simple, stupid.