first mate

James, you keep answering on the various issues bit by bit, and it is easy to figure the advantage of pursuing the debate in this manner, but what remains unanswered is the big picture? How are all these changes going to impact on traffic flow and congestion along LL and various side streets? Can you say that flow and congestion will be markedly improved overall?

Actually, I don't think it is led by nimbyism, i think that nimbyism is carefully cultivated by Councillors keen to find any means of support for their anti- car pro cycling agenda and vision. After all, it seems the Melbourne call for road closure was led by a councillor. The apparent tinkering here and there is actually part of a larger vision that is not admitted to. There is no real evidence to support their idea that their vision will improve lives, in their arrogance they will simply impose it and hope it all turns out as they hope. Locals that do suffer in the process are to be viewed as a sort of collateral damage, necessary to secure the greater "good". Don't forget there is something about the temperament of those drawn to politics that involves an almost pathological self belief and sense of being right; the pursuit of a dream or ambition is unlikely to be derailed by dissenters in the electoral ranks, especially so soon after an election. This seems to be evidenced by the inability of those dissenting voices to properly be heard or represented. Those who are meant to represent us have a ready plan and that will be implemented by fair means or foul, whether we like it or not.

Hi James, Thanks for all that but just to return to my central question, are you saying there will be no effect on traffic flow and journey times by car or by bus along Lordship Lane as the result of all the changes (Townley,Nx,20mph,Melbourne, major builds- at M&S and Harris/police station)? Surely such extensive change and expenditure should result in improvements for the bulk of residents? Will this be the case- journey times via motor transport being crucial to most?

James, other than the occasional petrol head I think everyone would put people before cars, it is an empty phrase and does not mean much at all. I wanted to know how you see all these different schemes impacting on traffic and parking along ldship lane and the side streets? For those locals using cars or buses will there be fewer road traffic queues or not? Will journey times improve or not? Will there be fewer parking spaces for local residents throughout the day or not? We know that you cannot look at streets in isolation since whatever happens on one tends to affect the next, so as our locally elected councillor can you please give an overview of how you expect things to improve for the majority of locals, most of whom do not cycle?

XIX, Precisely. I am sure James knows this but nothing, absolutely nothing must be allowed to obstruct the anti car/ cycling agenda, which both he and Labour support. All very well if, like the bulk of Councillors, you are young, fit and healthy, then this cycling utopia looks marvellous, but for the rest.... I am also intrigued by James' assertion to P68 that more people on Ashbourne and Chesterfield voted for closure than did residents on Melbourne. When was that then? And can we see the evidence please? I have to add that although the Harris build will be finite, if, as James suggests, closure of Melbourne siphons more traffic onto Lordship it sounds potentially chaotic. Unless he can guarantee here and now that pavements will not be closed and building vehicles lined up along the Lane, during the Harris build? Additionally, won't all the work on Townley place more pressure on LL? Won't the building out of pavements on Nx squeeze traffic further? I can see a situation where we'll have queues of bumper to bumper irate drivers and cyclists manically weaving in and out. Seriously you cannot do studies on individual junctions/roads and use these as evidence to prop up funding requests. Where is the ED traffic overview, how will all these different things impact the area as a whole? Who is/has looked at that...anyone? Just as an aside, since 20mph I think drivers are speeding even more, it's almost might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb. We all know the hot weather brings out madness in some but I've seen crazy driving and cycling in the last week. I'm not sure this insidious tactic of keep turning up the pressure on car drivers in the hope they'll all disappear is working.

rch Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've had a quick look... it looks like this > Traffic Order mainly addresses the permanent > parking restrictions (i.e., double yellow lines > and School Keep Clear markers) along the build > outs of all four arms of the junction redesign, > which makes me think that the main junction > redesign Traffic Order has already been publicised > and approved. > > I'll try to have a better look later when I have > more time and post an update. > > FYI, I've been trying to save a tree on Green Dale > that has had its roots exposed during the cycle > lane prep work, but I think the poor thing is > going to die. How utterly disgraceful and ironic, given the alleged eco credentials of the cycle lane. I hope the relevant Councillor is alerted and fines the contractors (this would cover the cost of your good work and time, RCH and others, in trying to save the tree, as well of course as replacing the tree- if it dies).

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi first mate, > The junction of Lordship Lane with North Cross > Road is not reducing parking. The parking place > just before the bus stop there - that meant buses > couldn't get near the pavement reliably I'm told > are being relocated by changing other lines. > Not sure how that see's a dramatic reduction in > parking across the shop? > > M&S will put significantly more pressure on the > area. Not much we can do about that now - we > objected to the planning permission on the basis > of parking but they got their planning > permission. > > Harris school would tend to put pressure on an > area that I've never had casework about parking > stress. Doesn't guarantee anything but it gives me > hope abut that building not causing parking > problems. James, So you seem to agree that that M&S will increase parking. How do you think closing Melbourne to traffic plus increased pressure on Chesterfield and other streets around Melbourne Grove will play out? Do remember also the holdups caused daily by the car wash and retail delivery juggernauts (soon to be stepped up under M&S)? Hard to see how a massive building project like Harris will not impact on both traffic and parking, given say the current ridiculous situation on Upland Road, where large sections of the pavement have been taken over by builders. Surely this new building project will be even larger? I know you want to support local residents on Melbourne but you represent all of us locals so I am interested to know how you see the big picture developing re traffic management across the area, as well as parking?

What is odder is that our local councillor supports this, knowing, one imagines, the inevitable knock on effect on surrounding streets- what then, more road closures?

Agree this is a put up job. As a local I find it odd that such an expensive and suddenly high profile project has been so low profile until now. I recall when certain councillors were keen to drive through CPZ they made much of it all being about providing support to a local street and residents, claiming no other agenda, they were simply doing what the residents wanted. This current scheme just seems a new chapter in the wider agenda to get cars out of ED and force us to use bikes, by whatever means. Again; Townley, introduction of restricted parking throughout ED, building out pavements on Lordship Lane, talk of closing off streets, all at a time when three major developments have been given the thumbs up. Councillors that fought hard for CPZ and lost will seize these new opportunities to increase pressure on car users and in this, they are seemingly at one with Southwark Labour.

There seem to be some major designs on road and traffic management in ED that being wrought in a rather piecemeal but I think very deliberate manner. I see the building out of the pavement next to N x has started. We are going to have significantly reduced parking all over the shop. Once Harris and M&S builds are underway, the Townley road fiasco installed and Melbourne Grove shut to traffic, can we really believe that life will get better....if you ride a bike possibly, but for the majority of transport users things are about to get worse, a lot worse. Is there a way to view the Melbourne list of signatures?

LM, I don't know to what extent other schools use the park and whether that useage is also an alternative to playing fields or in addition to. My point is simple, if the park starts to be used as a school playing field it will change the park long term. I assume that those in favour of Harris would have known all along that the playing fields were off site, that was what was agreed. Why was the school allowed to go ahead on that basis...unless it was always considered that at some point a claim could be made to the Rye. The difference is that both Harris' are adjacent to the Rye, in prime position, so to speak.

Just wanted to add to the above that politicians/ councils showed an incredible lack of foresight in selling off school playing fields. We need to be really careful that local parks do not become the solution to that mistake thereby losing another amenity valued and used by all the community. If parks end up being playing fields they will change, there will doubtless have to be restrictions on other users for health and safety reasons etc.. I can understand parental concerns and see that the suggested usage would be politically expedient for councillors under pressure from powerful parent lobbies, but why was Harris allowed to build a school without adequate play space? There was always a suspicion that sooner or later there would be parental pressure to use the park and the proximity of Harris to the park suggests this may have been a long game, especially when quid pro quos to do with park funding and upkeep are mentioned by councillors. Lack of play space was an issue raised at the time and pretty much ignored by the pro Harris lobby. Just think it could be thin end of the wedge. Fully expect to be shot down in flames, called a nimby, anti child, narrow minded, anti change etc..

I think one concern has always been that given the proximity of two Harris Academies to PR Park that creeping use of the park might mean it does become a school playground extension and that could have an effect on the character if the park as well as other park users. For instance for how much of each day and by what percentage of land would the park be used for school children? Clearly all children can use the park out of school time. It may be an unpopular view but I do see that longterm there could be problems with this. There may also eventually be problems if Harris start to pay for upkeep of the Rye. I think if other schools are using the Rye then Harris should be allowed to do the same to the same degree but not more.

Bermygirl, the primary objection is not to M&S. Some people would have preferred Iceland to stay but I don't think anyone is losing sleep over it. The issues are with the scale and density of the development above the retail space. There are also real and valid concerns about increased delivery times by extremely large vehicles, less turning space/ access and safety re the last point. If you visit the site and view the damaged bollard that sits at the entrance, you will have a better understanding about those concerns.

TJ, i think the nimby charge is a little easy and lazy. The objections are generally considered and based on detail in the application, not wholesale rejection of more housing or indeed applications, because we want to keep our local 'yard' exactly the same, preserved in aspic. I think we need to wise up to the general developer MO and I apologise now to the decent/ ethical developers out there. The issue is balance and proportion and since views on that will differ it is worth the debate and scrutiny, before it's too late. We regularly see developers playing the planners, and doing all they can to maximise space for profit, simultaneously avoiding any responsibility to the community in terms of social housing...Heygate a relatively local case in point. Some will argue that developers have every right in a free market to pursue pure profit, others that reasonable profit must be balanced with ethical considerations. If the local community does not fight for the interests of its local area then who will, the developers, the planners?

If the dog is a PB or PB cross it is illegal, if the man is making threats that indicate he might use the dog to harm someone I would think this was an arrestable offence under the Dangerous Dogs Act or other legislation. The dog should be confiscated and, if not a PB and of sound temperament, rehomed. If it really is PB or cross it may well be put down. Lee how very frightening for you and for this man's child. It sounds like he has serious substance abuse/ mental health issues. The most vulnerable people are probably those walking a dog, so thank you for the heads up. Have you reported this to the SNT? I really would if you can. I think it is other dogs that are most likely to get attacked. A dog in Herne Hill was attacked and killed by a PB type dog earlier in the year, on the street by the overground station.

Oooooh, now I feel torn. I want you to be right about this but the prospect of public hat eating makes that tricky...and I sense you are a man of your word. Any chance of an advance pic of hat, just in case?

Worldwiser, those objections were made and some upheld but then the developers out maneouvered the council planning dept and got the penultimate application ( inlcuding for the 8 residences)upheld.Those in know see that there are real H&S risks re transport, deliveries and so on. As LM infers, that horse bolted long and the developers are clearly going to be relentless in asking for more and more and seems to have little regard for the impact.

I believe it improves drainage, allowing surface water to dissipate, so it helps for sports etc..

I hope all those banging the housing drum, especially social housing, will wake up and smell the coffee.

Otta, we've got them on the edge of Camberwell...not so far. I think half the height of the picture you posted would be too high, but that's me. I agree the views are great if you get a top floor. The shadow cast all around it is another matter. James, thanks for coming back on this and shedding light (arf arf) on the matter

LM, so the fact that the developer was given permission to build 8 flats but chose to dump that application, chaging flats for offices and a further 4th storey for two penthouses on top, should be of concern? I'm still wondering if James has any news on this?????

Go Chazzle!

It is not the school I object to at all, it's the combination of two buildings ( Harris and proposed M&S) being made taller than they were in close proximity and therefore setting precedent for taller still. The focus should be on the M&S development not Harris. If we believe housing is vital then question hard what they are doing with that development. Just to be clear, M&S is just shorthand for the site...any objection has nothing to do with the retail brand.

Well let's wait and see, I do really hope that you, Healey and Otta are right and I am wrong.