Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi Renata Hamvas


I am not in your ward, and I don?t live in Scutari Road, But what I do know, is how Southwark Council waste our Public money on projects, that are a waste of time i.e.: Melbourne Grove. A very narrow road for a main road, two way traffic, people having there wing mirrors broken and cars scratched, because the Council have stopped them parking on the pavement verge, when the buses ran down there, they allowed off street parking on the pavement verge, and removed all traffic calming measures (HUMPS) so buses could be diverted down Melbourne grove whilst repairs took place somewhere else. After a couple of weeks, when the buses stopped and went back to their normal route, they relayed the humps and stopped parking on the concrete verge. But there was still the same volume of traffic using the road. And then they started giving tickets out for parking on the concrete pavement verge, ?130-00, and ?65 if you pay within fourteen days. This is extortion, seeing as a pensioner is only allowed ?116 per week to live on. Traffic calming humps have eventually been put in Ashbourne Grove and Chesterfield Grove at considerable expense, and have not made one bit of difference. Upland Road, Thousands wasted on humps that cars are parked on, and one out three humps are actually being used. And you can go on and on.

I live on Scutari Road and have 2 children. I know humps are unpopular, but they work: it is as simple as that. A clear illustration of this was when the humps were completely removed during the resurfacing. - cars were hammering up there at 40, perhaps even 50mph. The ones that were there before were negotiable, whereas the new ones are more effective in actually slowing the traffic down.


If I had my way, I would like to see the road being blocked at Mundania to stop the road being used as a rat run at all.

Claire-T Wrote:

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

> I live on Scutari Road and have 2 children. I

> know humps are unpopular, but they work: it is as

> simple as that. A clear illustration of this was

> when the humps were completely removed during the

> resurfacing. - cars were hammering up there at

> 40, perhaps even 50mph. The ones that were there

> before were negotiable, whereas the new ones are

> more effective in actually slowing the traffic

> down.

>

> If I had my way, I would like to see the road

> being blocked at Mundania to stop the road being

> used as a rat run at all.


I would support this proposal - th' rather than an absolute block it could be a "chicane" with emergency access for Ambulance / Fire Engines. The rat run is annoying and affects children's safety as Marmora Road now has a lot more children under the age of 10 than was h case 10 years ago.

I can see why if you live on those roads you would want them blocked off. By the same token, many residential roads in ED are used as as shortcuts or "rat runs". I don't think that this, in itself is a reason to block them off unless there is some other significant factor that makes them unsuitable for that amount of traffic (e.g. width of road).

Over in HOP we've got the anti rat run barriers and it's like the 1950s. The odd car, but otherwise peace and quiet reigns. There's a barrier in the block to the north and east of the station, north of the road Honor Oak Park, and one to the south and east. Worth a ten minute wander around if you're using HOP station any time and want to see the difference they do make.


No speed bumps either!

I seem to recall when a dog was unfortunately killed by a car on Marmora Road that the idea of blocking roads in and around Scutari Road was raised. The fear was that it would simply force traffic to use Mundania/Shelbury/Dovedale as an alternative.


The routing in Honor Oak Park is a definite example of how this can be done well, so there is a great local example to be considered.

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 mentioned  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...