sdrs

Which is precisely why it must not be allowed to go ahead. The expensive fiasco that was the Loughborough Junction closure (a Lambeth initiative) had to be abandoned two months in after this feedback was received from the emergency services and Kings College Hospital: 5.4 Official Submissions 5.4.1 London Ambulance Service (APPENDIX H) The London Ambulance Service stated that it will not formally object to the scheme as it is too early to conclusively measure any perceived increase in journey times. However, their official response raised concerns regarding; ? A perceived increase in traffic congestion ? The reduction in available routes for general motor traffic having a knock-on effect on other roads and the potential to increase response and journey times ? The use of physical barriers at a number of the closures reduces the number of available routes to emergency crews ? Possible increases in pollution generated from stationary/slow moving traffic NB All physical barriers referred to have been removed to allow emergency services to pass through freely and this has been acknowledged by the London Ambulance Service. 5.4.2 London Fire Brigade (APPENDIX I) The London Fire Brigade has raised a formal objection to the scheme based on; ? Gridlocked roads throughout the Coldharbour Lane area ? Specifically total gridlock at most times of the day and evening in Coldharbour Lane, Herne Hill Road, Hinton Road, Gresham Road and Barrington Road ? Antisocial behaviour and poor/dangerous driving being witnessed by drivers including 3 point turns on crowded roads and driving on pavements ? A significant knock on effect to surrounding roads as commuters and residents try and circumvent the closures ? Coldharbour Lane is Primary Route for attending incidents and as such reduced attendance times have been experienced It was stated that it is too early to provide empirical data or evidence confirming the increase in journey times but the objection stands. 5.4.3 Metropolitan Police Service (APPENDIX J) The Metropolitan Police Service stated that it would raise no objection to the scheme at this stage as it is too early for any measurable analysis to have taken place. 9 5.4.4 Kings College Hospital (APPENDIX K) KCT submitted a three page response to the review and the issues raised by KCH can be summarised as follows: ? Better efforts should have been made at engagement with KCH before the introduction of the closures ? Staff have experienced significant delays when travelling by bus or car ? Delays and local road congestion is a cause for concern for patients, visitors and staff ? Staff feedback of patients reporting difficulty arriving for appointment on time ? An increase in queuing around Cutcombe and Caldicott Road, the main vehicle access routes to the hospital car park ? Staff experiencing delays of between 20-30 minutes, results of which include added stress and an impact on managing work/life schedules including childcare ? Concerns about road safety for pedestrians and cyclists ? Lack of appropriate signposting for the road closures and new traffic arrangements The road closures impacted most adversely and dangerously on residents of the Loughborough Estate: 5.4.6 Loughborough Estate Management Board (APPENDIX M) A written submission from the Chair of the LEMB raised a number of concerns including: ? The detrimental effect on residents, staff, businesses and visitors to and from the estate 10 ? Vehicles using the private estate roads as a cut through and rat run to avoid the Barrington Road closure, endangering the lives of children and residents ? Access difficulties for healthcare professionals and carers needing to visit vulnerable residents on the estate ? Missed appointments at King?s College Hospital due to congestion of Coldharbour Lane ? The effect of the closures on local businesses and longer journey times Traffic displaced by the ChampionHill trial would similarly endanger the lives of children and residents on the East Dulwich Estate.

Here in case of interest is the monitoring plan (from the trial website) - https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/championhilltrial/supporting_documents/Champion%20Hill%20Trial%20No%20Entry%20%20Monitoring%20and%20Evaluation%20Plan%20DRAFT.pdf This makes clear that major displacement of traffic is anticipated by LB Southwark and a new Bromar/Pythchley Roads??rat run?? anticipated too. Joanna Lesak has been evasive when asked what the ??target measures?? are, saying only that they have ???yet to be decided??. When, how and by whom? Why haven?t these criteria already been established? Whose responsibility will it be if the trial impacts on air quality and/or on emergency response times? I asked Joanna how pollution levels would be monitored on DKH, Grove Lane, Champion Park, Pythchley and Bromar Roads during the trial. She said they wouldn?t be monitoring as such, only deduced from traffic levels. LBS hope to have the trial in place for up to a year (Jan19-Jan20), during the same period as already disruptive major roadworks on Denmark Hill/Camberwell Green. The trial should be deferred until these have been completed, which will also allow for grounds to be properly established for proceeding with it and for the impacts on air quality, emergency response times and bus journeys to be properly considered.

Rendelharris please note the issues raised in my posts. One of the serious unintended consequences of the trial is that it will increase (not decrease) air pollution. Another is that it will impact on bus journey times, so disincentivising people from using public transport.

The online questionnaire survey ends on 22nd October so responses need be made by this coming Monday. Southwark hope to press ahead with the trial (in the form of an experimental traffic order) without formal consultation, presenting the scheme as a ??live consultation?in itself??! This seems unacceptable, given the trial?s inevitable impacts on a wide area and that it could be in place for up to a year (January 2019-January 2020, according to LBS Joanna Lesak) But it has yet to be ??signed off??. Residents? groups from SE5 and SE24 have recently made representations to Florence Eshamomi, Helen Hayes, and Councillors Peter John and Sarah King and formal submissions via the online questionnaire. More representations are needed.

In response to the opening post - the residents of surrounding, affected roads onto which traffic would be displaced (Bromar, Pytchley, Grove Lane and others) were not consulted about this trial. It is also worth noting that TfL rejected the closure of Champion Hill a few years ago on grounds of unacceptable delays to bus journey times. And that the trial is strongly opposed by most residents of Champion Hill itself (many of whom will be unable to access their homes except via Denmark Hill). I gather there are also concerns about how coaches transporting students (of whom there are 750+ on Champion Hill) to and from Kings Halls of Residence will safely negotiate the proposed one way system on the Denmark Hill leg of Champion Hill.

Grove Lane Residents? Association has just submitted an objection. The unintended consequences of this misconceived and appallingly timed scheme are quite serious. Closing Champion Hill to through-traffic westbound (from Grove Hill Road and Dog Kennel Hill) will cause serious northbound congestion in the morning rush hour on Dog Kennel Hill, the southern section of Grove Lane and Champion Park, where it will back up at the already overloaded junction with Denmark Hill. This will have two unacceptable consequences: 1) it will increase journey times, including bus journey times and ambulance journey times 2) it will increase air pollution on Dog Kennel Hill, Grove Lane and Champion Park, roads with a high density of residents, which carry thousands of pedestrians to Denmark Hill and East Dulwich stations at the top and bottom of the hill, Kings College Hospital and local schools. The main roads, onto which the trial aims to displace traffic, constitute a Primary Route for ambulances serving Kings College Hospital. Kings is a major teaching hospital, whose busy A&E department and new Critical Care Centre accept patients from across the South East. Its workers and patients (and those of the Maudsley) are heavily dependent on the northbound bus service in the morning, especially in the absence of a tube station. The inevitable impacts of the proposed closure of Champion Hill to westbound through traffic on traffic flow, emergency service response times, bus journey times and air quality (in what is already an Air Quality Management Area) will be exacerbated if the trial is undertaken at the same time as major roadworks scheduled for the next 12 months and beyond by both Southwark (already begun on Denmark Hill) and TfL (Camberwell town centre). Electronic billboards are already warning motorists to avoid using Grove Lane/Champion Park for th? next year and to use alternative routes! Please make representations to LB Southwark to postpone the Champion Hill trial until after Southwark and TfL?s improvements at Denmark Hill and Camberwell Green have all been completed and more detailed study of the potential impacts has been made through wider and more in depth consultations. https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/championhilltrial/consultation/intro/ Cross borough cooperation is needed on this between Lambeth and Southwark. LB Southwark needs to be reminded that all residents living in the area have a voice, that decisions to introduce traffic measures that will impact across wider communities and on NHS providers and on emergency services need taking with great care and after appropriate consultations. Lambeth had to pull the plug on a similarly misconceived road closure in Loughborough Junction after the Fire Brigade lodged a formal complaint about increased response times. The LAS had noted similar delays. Kings had said patients and workers were suffering unacceptable delays getting to the hospital, and had commented on a perceived increase in pollution, resulting from the congestion.

Been hoping for a Pizza Express on Lordship Lane for years! I think it would do brilliantly. Hope it?s true.

Here?s a link to the planning portal where comments on the application can be submitted: http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=neighbourComments&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9577037 NB The consultation has been extended to Thursday 29th March

And a major bus route.

Most Londoners are fine with the idea of social housing near them, I beg to differ with you there Ollie. Also, by definition, any of us living near Champion Hill/Dog Kennel Hill has been living near social housing for years already, it?s not as if social housing is proposed where it wasn?t before. It is just proposed on a scale and on a footprint markedly different to what currently exists on this site. Social housing and good planning should not be mutually exclusive, the quality of social housing provided is important. Here is an opportunity for the Council to get it right, to build some social housing that people will really enjoy living in for generations to come and that will not be at odds with or detract from its setting. Proper scrutiny of these plans is as much in the interests of future residents of Seavington House in ensuring they are provided with a proper degree of amenity (including green spaces etc) as it is in the interests of other local residents. They should not be fobbed off with a brutalist monstrosity any more than the neighbourhood should be expected to embrace one. Concerns about how an oversized structure encroaching onto a notoriously dangerous junction are also legitimate, I struggle to see how such concerns make anyone a snob. Many of us remember a child fatality at the Champion Hill/Dog Kennel Hill junction twenty years ago and wish to ensure that sightlines around the junction are kept as clear as possible for pedestrian safety. None of this makes anyone anti social housing. My concerns and those of many other local residents would be exactly the same if the plans were for private housing.

Blahblah is right, the need for better council housing provision is understood and supported by locals, it?s just the footprint and design that have raised concerns. Initial plans have had huge buildings not set back at all from the junction, which would impact on sight lines for pedestrians crossing the roads and motorists and cyclists turning. This would be particularly dangerous for children walking to and from local schools. Concerns have also been raised about the proposed removal of green space and mature trees as mentioned and excessive height of the buildings, due to their location on the top of the hill and their proximity to neighbouring buildings. I am not aware of any particular historic significance to the site but Champion Hil has historically had a green, open aspect and it would preserve some much needed amenity both for the new occupants of the housing as well as for the neighbourhood generally if the green, tree-lined space to the front were retained.

If you take a moment to look at the planning application you?ll see that many of the rooms are for 9 or 12 people in bunks in one room. I don?t think the natural market for this would be retired gap-year couples! Nor do I think schools will be looking to accommodate children above a pub. As someone has already commented, the nature of the accommodation. makes it far more likely to attract stags and hens.

http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9575882

From the southwark planning portal: 17/AP/4421 | Change of use of the upper floors of The Cherry Tree Public House from ancillary staff accommodation (Class A4 Use) to create an up market bunk house hostel (Sui Generis) | 31-33 GROVE VALE, LONDON, SE22 8EQ [planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190] The Cherry Tree has submitted a planning application to transform their staff accommodation to "bunk house hostel" It will create 47 bed spaces across 5 bedrooms on the first and second floors. Application Received Date Thu 23 Nov 2017 Application Validated Date Fri 24 Nov 2017 Expiry Date Fri 19 Jan 2018 Actual Committee Date Not Available Standard Consultation Expiry Date Thu 28 Dec 2017 Decision Made Date Not Available Decision Issued Date Not Available

Yes agree you should also copy in James Barber.

Or if you want to make contact with the head of tree services (maybe more fruitful than a general enquiry to environmental services) you could email Gary Meadowcroft: gary@meadowcroft@southwark.gov.uk (Arboricultural Officer for Southwark)

Police have just appealed for witnesses to two recent attempted child abductions in Lambeth area http://news.met.police.uk/news/attempted-abductions-in-lambeth-230194

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37813709 London trees are estimated according to this recent report to provide ?133 million worth of benefits to Londoners, including air pollution removal and carbon sequestration, cooling and reducing the amount of water that flows into our drains.

Go for it! Good luck.

Well that is good news! I hope the tide is changing as Council departments are forced to accept the legitimacy and importance of the Trees Department and to acknowledge the benefits of urban trees. Gary certainly has or has had his work cut out with the tree-hating Highways Department. He told me a few months ago that the tree pit policy was their brainchild and that he was in the process of re-writing it. Which can only be good news. The Highways guys seem to have an outdated, frankly environmentally ignorant tendency to treat trees as a nuisance, which runs completely counter to current thinking on their benefits and to CAVAT (the tree valuation method adopted by Southwark to ensure that they be treated as assets rather liabilities). I would urge anyone interested in the borough's tree stock to read Southwark's 'Tree Management Strategy', available online, and the London Tree Officers' 'Risk Management Strategy', whose principles underpin it. I'm hoping Gary will revise some of the Tree Management Strategy too! Islington's seems to me to be more robust.

The person to talk to at the Council is Gary Meadowcroft, he is the Boroughs new chief tree officer and is in the process of revising the absurd tree strategy that forbade planting trees where the footpath was less than 2m.

Does anyone know what the police incident was this afternoon around 5pm on Grove Vale? There were several police vans outside Shaun's DIY/the library, it looked as if an arrest had been made when I went past as a young guy was being put in a police van. An ambulance was there for a while afterwards.

I hope the kitten is brought down safely, it must be really cold, hungry and weak by now. Does anyone have any idea whose it is?

You can also donate clothes at any time to the hostel for refugees (asylum seekers)down the side of the big church at the top of Barry Road (where it meets Lordship Lane). James Barber and others posted details about this on the forum a while ago. When I dropped some bags of clothes off there recently, there were quite a number of women and children staying in the hostel and the clothes were gratefully received.