Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just got this in an email from tfl - bit weird as I don't live near Forest Hill but thought it might help those of you that do...


I am writing to let you know about travel disruption in the Forest Hill area, while Thames Water carries out emergency repairs on a collapsed sewer. This will start from 21:00 tonight and is expected to last several days.


The A205 London Road will be restricted to one lane in both directions at the junction with Devonshire Road, outside Forest Hill station. There will be no right turn from the A205 London Road into Dartmouth Road. Road users are advised to avoid the area.


Bus routes 176 and 197 will be diverted via Sydenham Hill and Kirkdale and will not serve London Road, Forest Hill station and Dartmouth Road. Customers are advised to use nearby stops in Lordship Lane or Kirkdale.


To check for future updates on the roadworks, please visit tfl.gov.uk

This will affect those of us who commute from Forest Hill station who live at the Grove end of LL. This I think has been the third time Forest Hill has been severely affected by work by Thames Water, although I give them credit this time round for being able to keep traffic flowing, yet once again, I'll have to use Sydenham and bus it back from Kirkdale from tomorrow.

Suspect they send it out to those who live nearby or those who use their Oyster cards on bus routes likely to be affected.


It was only two years ago that the road was entirely closed for several weeks while they worked on that stretch of road. I wonder if this is an entirely new instance or a poor repair job. Suspect the traffic will be nasty from the Plough onwards at peak times until it's fixed.

Applespider Wrote:

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

> Suspect they send it out to those who live nearby

> or those who use their Oyster cards on bus routes

> likely to be affected.

>

> It was only two years ago that the road was

> entirely closed for several weeks while they

> worked on that stretch of road. I wonder if this

> is an entirely new instance or a poor repair job.

> Suspect the traffic will be nasty from the Plough

> onwards at peak times until it's fixed.


It's a new leak not connected to the collapsed sewer which was on London Road outside Sainsburys, however I've noticed water trickling down from the top of Devonshire Road by WHSmith for months now, yet nothing has been done about it until now.


As for the email notification, I believe this is taken from Oyster users who use the rail station or the local routes which pass Forest Hill station, so if you use the 176, 185 or 197 but go in the other direction, you'll still get an email if a registered user.


TfL have given me notifications in the past about the ELL opening from Forest Hill, the South London line extension from Peckham Rye & Denmark Hill and changes to the 12 bus when it converted back to double decker.

As an aside, alternatives to Forest Hill station.


P4. From Lordship Lane Estate (in Dulwich Common) or Lordship Lane/Wood Vale to Honor Oak Park station. Buses run every 12 minutes and takes approx 10 mins, but is prone to delays on a normal day.


176/197 from Lordship Lane to Sydenham station. As these routes are diverted via Sydenham Hill and Kirkdale, this will see journeys take between 5-10 mins from Dulwich library instead of the usual 15/20. There is a side entrance to Platform 1 which is easy to reach from Cobbs Corner by taking the first left at the roundabout then right.

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...