taper

Well that appears to be good news. Southwark Cyclists need to take a good look at themselves over this. I see Southwark Living Streets and the Greens were for keeping the bridge closed too. Utterly gobsmacked by this.

The requirement to have a consultation doesn't imply having a vote though. We elect councillors to make decisions, albeit in consultation where the law requires it or it's considered desirable.

I think the option of building on Greendale is now dead. Southwark have the lease. Question now is what happens to Champion Hill.

Truly astonishing decision, if this is indeed the decision.

I'd like to see England's biggest cheese shop on that location.

Thing is, as I noted earlier, I used to cycle up CG during morning rush hour, with a child trailer behind me (with child in it!), and then back down during the evening rush hour. The one lane arrangement regulated the flow of traffic and made it perfectly safe. But you're right, coming down the hill, you often had to stop (the horror).

Chadwick Road is a back street. Comparing it with the road outside DKH school is bogus and irrelevant. The data shows that closing the bridge has thrown a lot of extra traffic down Lyndhurst Grove and other streets, including Chadwick where traffic levels have spiked. We know the impact on people using and living on those streets has been negative. I used to live on Lyndhurst Grove. And when the bridge was last closed is was truly awful. Camberwell Grove with the traffic reduced to one lane is a good compromise given CG?s width and houses set back from the road. I?m still stunned that Southwark Ctyclists support it remaining closed. They seem to have been utterly played by the residents. Or perhaps a few leading lights in the organisation use that route a lot. Either way, they have done their reputation a lot of damage in my eyes.

Meadows have withdrawn the planning appeal today. So the proposal to build on Greendale would appear to be dead.

"...so keep the closure for now." Well that would certainly help keep your personal cycle commute more pleasant. As you noted earlier. But what do you say to the residents of nearby roads whose traffic levels have increased hugely since the closure?

"An area wide strategy" is out of scope of this consultation. The issue is does the road remain closed at that point or open to one lane of traffic. Why don't Southwark Cyclists suggest a wider strategy is needed and remain neutral on the issue of Camberwell Grove bridge? Otherwise, they fund themselves in the invidious position of supporting greater danger for cyclists using routes east of CG.

This is getting way way off topic.

I don't think keeping Camberwell Grove's bridge closed is a position Southwark Cyclists should or indeed can support. If you use that route, then I can see why you might be attracted to the idea. But if you live on, walk around or cycle through the roads east of CG, then its continued closure is a lousy prospect. Southwark Cyclists presumably aspire to represent all Southwark's cyclists. If they do, then i think they should remain neutral on the question of what to do with the bridge as there are conflicts with either (even though i think the best overall outcome for cyclists is the one lane solution). The consultation is on a narrow set of questions and should not be used as a proxy for making a wider point about provision for cyclists in that area (which i agree is poor) or traffic levels.

This is either naive or disingenuous. The choice in the consultation is to open the bridge or keep it closed. Southwark Cyclists are arguing to keep it closed. Traffic calming measures elsewhere are not in scope.

See previous post. The closed bridge makes Lyndhurst Grove, Lyndhurst Way and Bellenden a lot more treacherous for cyclists using those roads. Camberwell Grove is fine with the bridge half open.

Why are Southwark Cyclists supporting a position which acts against the interests of cyclists who use different routes in that immediate area?

I'm staggered at the position of Southwark Cyclists on the bridge closure. Utterly asinine. and reputationally damaging for the group. I used to cycle up Camberwell Grove every morning and back down in the late afternoon, when the bridge was partly open, dragging my then young daughter in a child trailer behind me. It was absolutely fine because the road is straight and visibility good. Whereas, heading down Lyndhurst Grove, which is narrow and winding, with a bad surface, and cars coming onto the road from the northern side, was very treacherous. It will be a lot worse now with the traffic increase. They should change their position.

Agreed. He and his team are very good

That's a good point. The Gowlett scenario

Say it all you like. It will have no bearing on the application. It's private property.

The comments so far are fabulous. eg: "Given the lack of outside space for pubs in the area, and the extent to which this is used by families with young children, I believe that this would have a hugely detrimental impact on the local community." Won't someone think of the children!? I understand only 30% of the garden will be used, from one of the comments. So the majority of this precious community asset - somewhere for children to play while their parents get on it - will be preserved.

Are the owners behind this proposal? Very much their own business isn't it, apart from where it impact on neighbours? Some odd comments about the garden being a community asset if it's privately owned. And there are plenty of other large pub gardens in the area (The Rye, WGT; all within a mile).

Average performance, but wasn't lucky. They hit the post three times. T&M were poor. No-one is talking about relegation.

hurrah!

No sign of work this morning. Chaos last night. A bigger bugger than usual to cycle up

Rim world, yes. Is it still there? I recall there was once a woman's clothes shop in Dalston called Spoilt Bitch. And on my holidays this year, I'm looking forward to a splendid repast at the Sour Grapes in St Agnes