Jump to content

Consultation on Bellenden Road - Holly Grove - Lyndhurst Way Cycling and Walking Improvements


Recommended Posts

Why when they redesigned this junction not so long ago this was not thought of.


I don't think Southwark has a clue. Univ grads with no local experience only paper theory. Would not be surprised to learn they are employed on how cheap they are or have managed to answer the pc employment questions correctly.

I've seen a lot of near accidents and near misses on the one way system at the bottom of Warwick Gardens, particularly at the junction between Lyndhurst Way and Holly Grove. People don't seem to understand the right of way system there and a lot of drivers really hammer it heading onto Bellenden Road. I don't think it's particularly bad for cyclists because of the one way. More of an issue for pedestrians and the general amenity of the area; which is essentially residential, but is blighted by the one way system.


Biggest issue for cyclists round there is the quality of road service on Lyndhurst Way, which is dreadful.


And the really big issue is that the whole of the Bellenden area is used as a rat run and cut-through. anything to address that would really make a big difference

You do occasionally get drivers coming out of Chadwick Road, cutting across cyclist travelling down Bellenden (usually idiots doing it quite intentionally). Agree that the surface on Lyndhurst is terrible and as said it's difficult to cross from and to Kelly Ave. to join the quietway. Otherwise, it seems OK cycling around Bellenden.

www.crashmaps.co.uk shows a number of reported crashes around the area of proposed changes.


I'm a pretty confident cyclist and don't personally have trouble cycling this route - except the occasional driver not giving me sufficient space to be safe. But it's actually about encouraging non cyclists to cycle as well as making the area easier to walk and residents having a more pleasant area. And the changes shouldn't make through journeys a bit quick not being diverted around a one-way system. This assumes they're not already speeding.

How will it make the area easier to walk? will people not use pavements any more and how will removing a small one way system and replacing it with two way traffic make it a more pleasant area?


How will it encourage non cyclists to cycle they still have to ride on busy inner london roads.


You state that there has been number of reported crashes around the area of proposed changes.


Would you please list them and what types of accidents they are if its not too much trouble

@rahrahrah the Peckham Road crossing is on traffic lights at least. Seems reasonably safe for cyclists, northbound you need to position yourself in front of traffic in the Lyndhurst Way queue (to avoid possible left/right hooks), southbound you have to keep an eye out for right turning traffic out of Lyndhurst, but overall it's not too bad.



I dare anyone car or cyclist to try and speed on Lyndhurst Way with all the speed bumps and parked traffic as to blockages on Bellenden Road outside the shops this is more to do with selfishness than anything.



By speed do you mean exceed the posted 20mph limit, or the 30 one that some on this forum wish was still in force? Piece of cake getting to 25 along there, car or bike. 35? Maybe not.


@ed_pete The problem with cycle training / ride leading / confidence building *on its own* (don't get me wrong.. think it's a great idea & all cyclists or would-be-cyclists should do it) is that it excludes the young from actually getting from A to B by bike. You can't train an 8-year-old to cycle independently in busy traffic conditions any more than you can train a pig to sing opera. They lack the basic physical and mental attributes required - most importantly, predictable behaviour themselves, good judgement in the face of the unexpected, and the ability to intuitively see things from other road users' point of view. Even older kids & young adults display some pretty questionable judgement on the roads all too often, as anyone who's ever tried to get under-21's car insurance knows all too well.


So while I don't believe in cycle paths everywhere - and I haven't seen anyone credible suggesting that - the kind of traffic volume reduction on minor streets which this scheme proposes does create conditions more suitable for some younger riders. I'm very much in favour of cyclists sharing the road with other traffic, but only in situations where the other traffic has been reduced/calmed to a point where few are excluded from cycling if they want to. The existing layout is fine if you keep your wits about you, but it does have a certain element of "surprise" (for pedestrians, cyclists & drivers alike) and the inexperienced aren't likely to cope well with that.


If you think cycling in London should be limited to the kind of people who are fit to hold a driving license, sure, leave it as is, it hasn't killed anyone AFAIK, but I personally think we should aspire to something a bit better than that.

Looking at the crash map it seems that two areas of concern are Chadwick Road (where it crosses Bellenden) and peckham road at the crossing from Lyndhurst Road to and from Kelly avenue. I'm not shocked.

The former, I can't see anyone being able to do much about. In my experience a lot of vehicles will see bikes and dash out in front of them regardless, because they don't want to be held up, or simply for sport. This is about education more than road layout in my opinion. There are a number of drivers who will go out of their way to cut up cyclists and this is a classic spot for the belligerent Top Gear watching van driver.

The second 'hotspot' could do with some attention - the crossing between Lyndhurst and Kelly Avenue. I believe it's outside the scope of this consultation though.

So I looked on crashmap.co.uk and found that from 2011 it indicates 1 serious incident (Lyndhurst grovej/w lyndhurst way and 6 minor incidents in the broad area covered by the consultation. Whilst any incident is unwelcome (and without creating a crashmap login which I can't be bothered with right now I can't see the reports)these could just be car to car and have nothing to do with pedestrians and cyclists.

Having lived in the area for a long while now and as a pedestrian and driver (I don't cycle, I feel that what is really needed is some more pedestrian crossings to cross Chadwick maybe further up towards the j/w Lyndhurst Way and a way to better manage the roadcrossing from Chadwick rd east over Bellenden rd to chadwick Rd west. I have witnessed a bad accident here, but it was caused by both drivers not following the highway code - ie pulling out without due attention and driving too fast so unable to stop in time. Changing the road system won't change bad road use or pedestrian behaviours! The rest of the system works fine.

Unfortunately we local residents will not have a say in this as local knowledge will be brushed aside in favour of new residents fear of moving traffic.


All that is needed is for the junctions to be looked at particularly the Bellenden cross over with both Chadwick Roads as three roads converge.


If you are stuck in lower Chadwick Road you will put your foot down to get across. As mentioned earlier patience and common sense seems to be lacking in this new generation. Never had these problems before.

Charles Notice Wrote:

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

> Unfortunately we local residents will not have a

> say in this as local knowledge will be brushed

> aside in favour of new residents fear of moving

> traffic.

>

Why do people make statements like this ? What evidence do you have ? There is an open consultation - anyone can reply.

Why? I only found out about this consultation by chance. I am not enrolled with Peckham vision etc. I did ask Southwark to keep me informed but they never did about future consultations after the last fiasco.


Experience has shown that if you are not in the loop you have no chance of commenting. Local and I want change mob will always push their own views and if it meets Southwarks requirements they will use that push it through.


Having been involved with Authorities I know the most vocal and pushy minority will always push it through if it meets the ruling parties requirements.


I suspect the vast majority of local residents know zip about this consultation.


Even though this effects the local area no local Cllrs has put their head above the parapet to comment Nothing strange in that they are Labour.


It will be interesting to see the figures relating to people voted.


Was you contacted about this?

"Re: Closure of Melbourne Grove to through traffic - new petitionjectio

Posted by ed_pete 23 December, 2015 20:51"


Usual rhetoric without evidence. However I am glad that Charles has highlighted the consultation on the changes to Bellenden Road / Holly Grove etc for which I will start a separate thread.



And if ed_pete had not kindly put up this thread who would have known about the consultation?

Hi CN,

The one-way system when I've walked through the area appeared to me to encourage speeding making it harder to cross the road especially with children. Sorry I assumed this was obvious to anyone walking in the area.


I used to live on a one-way gyratory road. We also had it ended and made a huge improvement to the area while reducing the number of vehicles sent on a detour through the one-way system. After talking to a Labour councillor about it he told me the only person who was going to fix the problem was me - cack handed inspired me to get involved in local politics. Seems pretty obvious win win to me for all residents and people travelling through the area.

"The one-way system when I've walked through the area appeared to me to encourage speeding making it harder to cross the road especially with children. Sorry I assumed this was obvious to anyone walking in the area."


As I live in the area of the one way system I would have thought as a resident I would have a better idea of the system than you who only walks through the area and who has well known fixed views on certain subjects.


What appears to you to be correct is not always the case. Melbourne Grove springs to mind and your view.


Please when commenting please do not do so under Liberal Democrat Councillor for East Dulwich Ward.


You do not represent Lane Ward so please if you wish to comment do so as an ordinary person. So please drop the above

As someone living in the middle of the gyratory, I see a lot of drivers treat the Lyndhurst/Holly Grove/Bellenden turns as a chicane and taking the blind corners too fast to stop safely. I also see boy racers dangerously overtaking on the wide part of the one-way road between the Holly Grove/Bellenden corner and the Bellenden/Chadwick Rd junction. Accidents - maybe not. A lot of near misses - yes.

Hi CN,

If I were to comment without making it clear I'm a councillor some would accuse me of being less transparent.


You can register on the Southwark Council website to be email when any documents with the key words your log are posted on the council website. If you were to use this service you shouldn't need to randomly check notice boards any more or read the small ads section of local newspapers for public notices. Hope this helps. If you get stuck working out how to do this I'll did out a link for you.

Thank you for your reply however could you respond to the message below which you seem to have missed.



How will it make the area easier to walk? will people not use pavements any more and how will removing a small one way system and replacing it with two way traffic make it a more pleasant area?


How will it encourage non cyclists to cycle they still have to ride on busy inner london roads.


You state that there has been number of reported crashes around the area of proposed changes.


Would you please list them and what types of accidents they are if its not too much trouble


Regards

Cycle through here most days, can't see any real benefit here at all.


When will the council stop messing around with these sort of cosmetic exercises at a time when money is tight?


At least spend the money we do have on something meaningful!

More covered, secure bike parking near people's homes and at public transport destination would get. Lot more pool cycling than tinkering with road layouts. Why can't you park a bike safely at Brixton, our nearest tube for example?

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi CN,

> The one-way system when I've walked through the

> area appeared to me to encourage speeding making

> it harder to cross the road especially with

> children. Sorry I assumed this was obvious to

> anyone walking in the area.

>

> I used to live on a one-way gyratory road. We also

> had it ended and made a huge improvement to the

> area while reducing the number of vehicles sent on

> a detour through the one-way system. After talking

> to a Labour councillor about it he told me the

> only person who was going to fix the problem was

> me - cack handed inspired me to get involved in

> local politics. Seems pretty obvious win win to me

> for all residents and people travelling through

> the area.



Just got it. The Caine Munity. Humphry Bogart.

Strongly support these improvements, to an area which is finally starting to fulfill its potential. There will always be people against any change, and it's impossible to please everyone or come up with the perfect solution for everything.
For those claiming to live in the area affected but not to have known about the consultation: there's a large banner on the railings of Warwick Gardens opposite Holly Grove, which has been there since before Christmas.

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

    • why do we think we have the right for the elected local council to be transparent?
    • Granted Shoreditch is still London, but given that the council & organisers main argument for the festival is that it is a local event, for local people (to use your metaphor), there's surprisingly little to back this up. As Blah Blah informatively points out, this is now just a commercial venture with no local connection. Our park is regarded by them as an asset that they've paid to use & abuse. There's never been any details provided of where the attendees are from, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's never been any details provided of any increase in sales for local businesses, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's promises of "opportunities" for local people & traders to work at the festival, but, again, no figures to back this up. And lastly, the fee for the whole thing goes 100% to running the Events dept, and the dozens of free events that no-one seems able to identify, and, yes, you guessed it - no details provided for by the council. So again, no tangible benefit for the residents of the area.
    • I mean I hold no portfolio to defend Gala,  but I suspect that is their office.  I am a company director,  my home address is also not registered with Companies House. Also guys this is Peckham not Royston Vasey.  Shoreditch is a mere 20 mins away by train, it's not an offshore bolt hole in Luxembourg.
    • While it is good that GALA have withdrawn their application for a second weekend, local people and councillors will likely have the same fight on their hands for next year's event. In reading the consultation report, I noted the Council were putting the GALA event in the same light as all the other events that use the park, like the Circus, the Fair and even the FOPR fete. ALL of those events use the common, not the park, and cause nothing like the level of noise and/or disruption of the GALA event. Even the two day Irish Festival (for those that remember that one) was never as noisy as GALA. So there is some disingenuity and hypocrisy from the Council on this, something I wll point out in my response to the report. The other point to note was that in past years branches were cut back for the fencing. Last year the council promised no trees would be cut after pushback, but they seem to now be reverting to a position of 'only in agreement with the council's arbourist'. Is this more hypocrisy from 'green' Southwark who seem to once again be ok with defacing trees for a fence that is up for just days? The people who now own GALA don't live in this area. GALA as an event began in Brockwell Park. It then lost its place there to bigger events (that pesumably could pay Lambeth Council more). One of the then company directors lived on the Rye Hill Estate next to the park and that is likely how Peckham Rye came to be the new choice for the event. That person is no longer involved. Today's GALA company is not the same as the 'We Are the Fair' company that held that first event, not the same in scope, aim or culture. And therein lies the problem. It's not a local community led enterprise, but a commercial one, underwritten by a venture capital company. The same company co-run the Rally Event each year in Southwark Park, which btw is licensed as a one day event only. That does seem to be truer to the original 'We Are the Fair' vision, but how much of that is down to GALA as opoosed to 'Bird on the Wire' (the other group organising it) is hard to say.  For local people, it's three days of not being able to open windows, As someone said above, if a resident set up a PA in their back garden and subjected the neighbours to 10 hours of hard dance music every day for three days, the Council would take action. Do not underestimate how distressing that is for many local residents, many of whom are elderly, frail, young, vulnerable. They deserve more respect than is being shown by those who think it's no big deal. And just to be clear, GALA and the council do not consider there to be a breach of db level if the level is corrected within 15 minutes of the breach. In other words, while db levels are set as part of the noise management plan, there is an acknowledgement that a breach is ok if corrected within 15 minutes. That is just not good enough. Local councillors objected to the proposed extension. 75% of those that responded to the consultation locally did not want GALA 26 to take place at all. For me personally, any goodwill that had been built up through the various consultations over recent years was erased with that application for a second weekend, and especially given that when asked if there were plans for that in post 2025 event feedback meetings (following rumours), GALA lied and said there were no plans to expand. I have come to the conclusion that all the effort to appease on some things is merely an exercise in show, to get past the council's threshold for the events licence. They couldn't give a hoot in reality for local people, and people that genuinely care about parkland, don't litter it with noisy festivals either.   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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