healey

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ED and Peckham are good for commuting to the city > (putting the current temporary situation to one > side). Other areas are good for the west end, but > not so convenient for the city (e.g. Putney, > Wandsworth). Just the way it is. > > You can't expect every area of London to have a > direct link into the west end. Perhaps not, but there's a huge gap in the network at the centre of which sits Walworth Rd. A no-brainer to fix.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you need a direct link to the West End, moving > to ED was a terrible decision! Haha, but I love it here and will put up with it! Nevertheless the need cannot be denied. Whether it be the Bakerloo line, the re-opening of Camberwell station or a Victoria-Overground link, a faster route directly north from here is badly needed.

The lack of a direct rail link north to the West End lies at the very core of the area's transport problems. People either trundle up Walworth Rd or head east/west usng rail/tube links.

Great to read these stories. Since there seems to be alot of local knowledge here, could anyone tell me anything about the now converted shops halfway up Crystal Palace Rd between North Cross and Whatley? Anyone have pics of that stretch. Please PM if this is a bit off topic....

About time... I wonder if this will put the reopening of Camberwell station on the cards?

Better today. Perhaps the phasing is being tweaked....

Sent in a comment to the appeal. The proposal is horribly out of context. If redevelopment can't be stopped, perhaps there could be a push for the architectural style and scale to be preserved. The example on East Dulwich Grove/Elsie Road sets a precedent, even if it is a tad too large for my liking.

Indeed, looks like it, but simply not good enough. What makes it worse is that Walworth Rd seems to have lower priority at the lights than Kennington Park Rd which appears to carry far fewer bus routes. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > healey Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > Camberwell badly needs a tube link. > > There is no money for existing communities in the > transport budget under Johnson. Unless public > money can be used to line the pockets of property > developers it aint being invested in > infrastructure.

Terrible from Walworth again this morning. A long row of buses stuck waiting at lights to get in. Camberwell badly needs a tube link.

E&C was quite a bit better last week too. Maybe they tweaked the phasing..... Hopper Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Buses fine today - even with Elephant. Everyone is > on holiday it seems (apart from me)

This is simply due to the ongoing overhaul at LB. It's inevitable as platforms are out of action. The end is in finally in sight, however. The Charing Cross link returns in Dec 2016. Work complete in 2018. I work in Soho, so not having the Charing Cross link has been an utter pain in the backside.

This junction is always going to be busy and I'm in favour of making it nicer for pedestrians to live with. What really rankles it the lack of will to tackle a major contributing factor to its problems - the lack of a tube link to Walworth and Camberwell.

Interesting that they mention reopening Camberwell overground station. Useful, but doesn't really address the core issue of more direct access north to the Waterloo area. Sweptwind Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > http://content.tfl.gov.uk/board-20151217-pt1-item0 > 5-commissioner-report.pdf > > Page 38 refers to the Bakerloo Line extension. The > rest is worth a read too.

Still not great for those heading directly north. It shouldn't be a case of either/or anyway. Both options should be built. monkeylite Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Camberwell is served by the well connected Denmark > Hill and is a short walk from other stations. OKR > has nothing. And there are tens of thousands of > existing residents there as well. > > In an ideal world, there would be two new > lines/extensions coming down both ways. But I can > see why OKR would get the nod.

The situation is indeed laughable. There's a great big station building out front and instead everyone gets shoehorned though the new side entrance. It's a mess.

This person has a good pic. http://picssr.com/photos/sukhy/interesting/page2 nm33 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Please please can anyone help me. > > I am after any photos of inside 72 >

It's a high street. There's been a retail outlet with car park on this spot for decades, longer than many of the current generation of residents have been living there. What do you expect, fields? KoolBananas Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > healey Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Christ are people still moaning about this? The > > car wash causes more traffic than the M&S ever > > will. > > Added together... > > Sheesh use your brain!

Are people still fighting about this? The car wash causes more traffic than the M&S ever will. As for all the fouth floor fuss, there's already a large plant level on the current building that I bet few have ever noticed. Im all for protecting heritage and public environments, but the level of nitpicking NIMBYism on this issue is ridiculous. Take a look at the plans for the railway cottages, now these really ARE unacceptable.

Jaflong. Naga.

A couple of minutes inconvenience for a few weeks. Oh, the humanity! It sorts out the pedestrian pinch point at the end of North Cross Road.

Schuco are a very good make.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Otta, some gargoyles would be fun and a change > from the bland, unimaginative boxes currently on > offer. That said, it is the height that concerns > me. As a one off it's okay, but along with the m&s > proposal that sets a precedent for more of the > same. The vast majority of ED properties are brick boxes with a bit of Victorian stonework thrown on the front. This newer design is a solid bit of modern London vernacular in stock brick. Should fit in well.

Looks like a functional enough building. The new plans are much better. It's good that they've made them use stock brick instead of rendered and painted breeze block.

Quite like the houses. It's a moderate sized development that seems to be in keeping with the area. The objections strike me as classic nimbyism. "Won't someone please think of the children" is a rather weak, manipulative argument, as is tacking on recent cyclist deaths on major city roads. The disruption won't last forevever.

Should be rejected, I hope. Not a good precedent to set.