first mate

I'm sure someone could do some clever calculations re loss to economy.

TG, Copenhagen is having issues with cycle congestion, apparently because cycling numbers have increased too fast in the last few years. This is not to be wholly negative but again highlights that large scale meddling to force change can be problematic.

Whaaaaat? This could be a great opportunity for a feasibility study as to whether we need to let any traffic through LL ...........ever.

It is in the S'wark cycling strategy doc 2015- a link was posted in an earlier thread. Goodness only knows what they are up to, but quite apart from the whole business of trying to force people out of cars a deeply cynical part of me wonders if they also want to place enough traffic pressure on residential roads that people start begging for CPZ; don't forget they are slowly reducing parking spaces. Don't forget also that we will soon have Harris and Charter and M&S. Whatever reassurances they give, these developments will bump up traffic and parking up. It seems from the Loughborough experiment that the Council have tried to cash in on deliberate creation of chaos by then fining, perhaps this is another aim....who knows. The thing that drives me mad is that there seems to be no coherent explanation/consultation or accountability. Instead, Councillors come on here to say what they want and no more or dismiss objectors as hysterical (the anti Melbourne Barrier campaign were accused of this by Councillors) and posters on here as "snides".

Remember the stated aim, and I quote, is to "design out" traffic on residential roads in 5 years and to remove parking on main roads within the same timeframe. So, by routing cars onto sidestreets I imagine they hope to make life as unpleasant as possible for car drivers and to turn residents against car drivers. This is the kind of imaginative, blue skies thinking we are paying our taxes for folks.

Do watch the space though- it will be resubmitted,I can guarantee. Serial resubmission is the developers MO as they chip, chip away getting a little more each time and they also wait for any technical hiccup where they can swoop in and catch planning off guard, securing game, set and match.

I noticed today rather large square bollard type things (hard to describe) at the junction of Melbourne Grove and ED Grove on both sides. They have also appeared on the junction of Glengarry Rd into ED Grove. What are these for???

James, On the M&S thread Mark T writes that the application for the penthouses has gone to appeal because the Council timed out in a reply. Allegedly a liad of appeal letters were sent round but at least two of us have not received them. The deadline to respond is 14th October. It would be extraordinary if yet again the Council had been caught out on a technicality as happened last time. Could you please find out what has gone on? I thought you said this was being called in and decided by a planning committee, what has gone wrong?

Mark T, I'm going to cross post to James thread. He said that the decision was to be called in but has never come back on what happened next.

No appeal letter here...strange. James Barber, are you aware if the appeal ?

TG great, we sort of agree on what I see as the main issue which is lack of consultation. We have an intelligent population why not have the debate properly? Instead people, myself included, are reduced to ranting on the forum because there is little faith in our elected reps to properly listen and represent us when it counts. James appears to support the wilder fringes of those proposing the agenda and there seems little to choose between his take and S'wark Labour, and Charlie Smith who came on here for, I think, only the second time ever, sounded like his mind was already made up and that he would not be listening to those (presumably like me) who "snide" anonymously on the forum. So that's it, loads of objectors dismissed, jus' like that! What to do?

TG, In fairness to TheCat I think she was referring to this particular locale. However, what I find interesting is the wider trend, presumably well under way before the mass meddling began. The issue is that attempts are being made to wildly force stuff through and without proper consultation, therefore it feels experimental. I just want to see the agenda slowed down, let's stand back and see what impact a few changes have, let's consult properly and that way we reduce stress all round whilst, we hope, heading for a better infrastructure that works all round.

I do accept we need to be mindful of that extreme, but change is good if the pace is moderate and considered.

Yes, they have made incremental changes to infrastructure, a ban on high capacity toilet flushes being the most relevant comparison but they have not recommended that within 5 years all flat owners will have to share loos and showers and all homeowners should rip out any bathrooms and replace them with time-limited shower units - that is more like the set of current proposals. Too much, too soon. wulfhound Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @first mate - no, but they did just spend > ?millions, dig up the park for the best part of a > year, permanently rearrange the playground, and > indeed closed some roads (albeit temporarily) to > reduce the impact of rainwater drainage on the > sewer system. Be thankful you don't live or work > near a Thames Tideway Tunnel site. > > They've already banned high-capacity toilet flush > units some years ago - the maximum now is 6 > litres, less than half the standard a few years > ago. Fortunately, better modern engineering means > they're still reasonably.. effective.

Precisely and The Hague does not, for instance, share the cycling success of Amsterdam...why, I wonder?

RB, People are not saying they reject cycling or reject any notion of change, it is the timeframe (5 years to "design out" cars on residential streets and remove parking from main roads)the manner and the complete lack of public consultation and, it would seem, real joined up thinking. In short, ideals trounce commonsense. We keep hearing about Amsterdam and Copenhagen but both have a long history of cycling and have slowly built an infrastucture to support that- it is cultural, we cannot simply try to change London into Amsterdam in a few years. Additionally, I gather Copenhagen now has cycling problems in that cyclists are complaining of cycle congestion.

James, what crashes? Sorry, this is not the amazing improvement you claim. People would have visited the market without any of this. As it is, one pedestrian reports that they recently tripped as the cobbles are so badly laid. When the market is on much of that area is shut to traffic anyhow, so I really don't get the points you are making. Just go a little further down to Upland and Crystal Palace and the paths are appalling and, of course much of the road and pavement now building sites. Those poor shopkeepers are also probably losing trade. What about looking at that?

Wulfhound, I would suggest the changes are not being "done right", if they were I submit that opposition would not be so great. people drive for complex reasons, trying to solve all that in one cackhanded effort is not the way to go.

wulfhound, I see little ire directed at cyclists, many who drive also cycle when they can. Any ire is directed at Council officials who have conceived this agenda and its execution and who claim widespread public support based on consultation. I am glad that cycling, uber etc.. works well for you and your family. For others it does not. That is the reality.

TG, as you have said, it is in part a generational thing, younger people are making choices based on what works best for them and as pressures increase they will arrange their lives to maximise what continues to work best for them, this probably will involve reduction of car use. However, these sorts of largescale societal changes take time to filter through, they cannot be shoehorned in within a few years. The population explosion will place pressure on other infrastructures, sewage and waste water for instance, but we won't be advising people to rip out their toilets and bathrooms, will we? Sorry, a slightly facetious point but the current approach is ill thought out, crude and heavy-handed.

TG, again, no, it is not " encouraging" it is purely punitive and will massively increase levels of resentment and, I suspect, risk taking, creating more danger all round. Stress is also a killer. This is an attempt to solve a very complex issue with a very simple solution- force as many people as possible to stop using a car by clearly and deliberately making life as difficult and uncomfortable as possible, simpulz. In reality it does not work. Most of all, there has been no widespread, public consultation on this. That is an astounding fabrication and distortion. It is also sheer madness and folly to force change without overriding public will. We all have children and young relatives who cycle at every given opportunity, as did many of us at that age...it made financial sense and we were fit enough to do so. But most of these youngsters do not have the same responsibilities that come with age. We do not tend to live in small communities of related, supportive family networks, those responsibilites may require frequent trips well away from home and of the type that might break the bank and brain if only available by public transport. Many of us also have jobs with equipment that cannot be carried in bicycle panniers or carried around on buses etc.., are you suggesting we just find new jobs?

No TG, they do it because they can and it suits them at this juncture. I am not advocating everyone driving into London; many of us need a car for work outside London or other important reasons but, if S'wark has its way, will be simply unable to own and keep one in the near future- sorry that is just not pragmatic and will put a lot of people under a lot of pressure. Again change should happen but not at this speed.

TG, yes space on streets if every private car owner gets rid, but then there will not be enough zip cars for all, given that S'wark wnat to avoid parked cars to amke cycling easier. Nor will people be able to easily access get into country etc.. unless they are fit enough to cycle that far, and let's not get into family commitments and so on. Public transport is unreliable and expensive too. Sorry, as I said, these measures smack of bright eyed fanatacism and not much pragmatism. Agree re Boris but, though undeniably intelligent, he is a master of gesture politics; detail has never been his thing. Wholsale redesigning of our streets and car ownership in 5 years is all about detail.

TG, it is too much too soon and it will create a lot of stress and anger. I accept it is being done with good intentions but it has not been properly thought through, that is evident from everything we have seen thus far. It is also pretty outrageous that claims to full public consultation are being made, when we know this is not the case. People will not have access to cars if they cannot park them and if they are to be 'designed' out of residential streets in 5 years. There is unlikely to be a time in the near and medium future when everyone that might need a zip car at short notice will have access to one- where will all these cars be kept?

I gather there is still demand for investment property so there's your market and I am sure developers will be only too happy to oblige with supply.