rollflick

Surely it's the people not responding to consultations who are lazy? And many people who want a CPZ - so space can be given over to wider pavements, safer junctions, cycling, greenery etc. - don't have any cars at all. Anyway a journalist who lives locally has just made a film about parking. It's only six minutes long, really worth watching and very timely! https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2018/oct/30/why-we-should-be-paying-more-for-parking-video-explainer

It's not possible to model the impact of trials like this with particular accuracy, even assuming everything else could be fixed. External factors from everything like whether it's a cold winter to whether there's a no deal Brexit will impact on traffic levels. Traffic impacts are harder than ever to model as so many drivers are being guided by Google, Waze etc. and their algorithms are secret and evolving. Far better to go ahead with an experiment but given people an idea of the thresholds that will be used to judge success or not and a chance to comment on them.

According to the council website (though all we have are the titles to go by until the consultations start), the proposed CPZs include some measures to reduce bus delays. Decisions following the consultation are due to be made by February 2019. East Dulwich parking zone (incorporating Lordship Lane bus mitigation measures & Lordship Lane safety improvements) Peckham West parking zone (incorporating Grove Vale bus (mitigation measures)) http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgListPlanItems.aspx?PlanId=536 With Southwark worst affected by drops in bus passengers in London and having seriously missed its own targets to cut bus delays, it's about time the council took action. Otherwise cash strapped TfL could cut our buses further. Whether the proposals will help remains to be seen though.

Sure, sources as follows: On 60 week closure, below is an extract of email allegedly from Cllr Richard Livingstone obtained by Southwark Cyclists (SC), also confirmed by Southwark's Traffic Manager on site visit on 11 October 2018 that was attended by them: "I understand that the closure will be for 60 weeks from January, as Southern Gas Network are having to replace the two gas mains under the street. The pavements will remain open to pedestrians and SGN will compensate businesses for any loss of earnings. SGN first approached the council about doing this in 2011. There has been discourse between the council and them since that time and it is clear that the council could not justify putting the work off for longer. A diversion along Copeland Road to the east of Rye Lane has been identified and this will be signposted and advertised. I have asked officers to put in place a second route for cyclists to the west of Rye Lane and for this to be signposted. Whilst I don?t mind cars having to take a longer route around Rye Lane, I think it would be unfair for cyclists travelling north-westwards to not have a quicker option. Regards Councillor Richard Livingstone" alex_b, Spine route proposals consultation showing only 28% of respondents in favour can be found here: https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/eastdulwichtopeckham/ There is still the statutory stage of publishing traffic orders in 'late 2018' to go through but that's normally just a formality. In terms of closure yes you're absolutely right Rendelharris that the whole of Rye Lane won't be closed, it will be a rolling closure but that still means larger vehicles in particular all the buses will need to go round via Copeland Road during the whole duration of works. The problem for cycling is that the streets to the west are some of the least intuitive to navigate in the borough due to the mix of one-ways and diagonals. Southwark Cyclists are proposing permeability improvements to make it easier for people cycling to skirt round the blocked bit of Rye Lane to the west. That would also reduce the pressure on Copeland, helping bus users & drivers. For what it's worth all cycling groups objected to the current plans for the Spine, preferring the previous plan to remove the Bellenden gyratory that by comparison received a majority of consultees in favour.

Good spot goosey-goosey, seems the council plans to dig up Bellenden, Lyndhurst and a whole host of other roads in 2019 for the Spine. So could not come at a worse time whether you travel by bike, bus or car. Honestly can't see how the Spine can go ahead as planned now. The council has a legal duty to minimise disruption to the road network by not having multiple streets blocked by road works. Also opening its flagship cycle route at a time when the streets it runs along are gridlocked won't encourage more people to cycle and will damage both Southwark's and the Spine's reputation. Apparently Transport for London has even refused to let Southwark use its cycle quietway branding for the route as the Spine(less) proposals simply failed to reduce motor traffic or safely separate people cycling. Unfortunately while the proposals were also rejected by a resounding 2/3 of people who responded, they were quietly rubber stamped days before the council shut down for the May elections. Maybe there is a silver lining if this all means the Spine gets a rethink.

Rye Lane needs to be closed to replace major gas mains along it and the latest estimate, since the Southwark News report below, is that this will take 60 weeks from January 2019 to April 2020. This will require major excavations and only a pavement for pedestrians past the works is expected to be kept open. https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/rye-lane-gas-network-upgrade-set-to-bring-more-traffic-jams-to-peckham/ A diversion for buses will run via Copeland Road, which will become very congested, meaning more people are likely to drive off East Dulwich Road to cut through the Bellenden Road area. With the main redevelopment of Peckham Rye station starting in spring 2019 and due to continue to autumn 2021, hope somehow the most disruptive bits can happen at the same time. Otherwise there could be 3 years of disruption for buses, cycling and driving from East Dulwich.

The big issue here is that Southwark Council consulted on its draft Kerbside Strategy 18 months ago, which proposes radical new parking policies, but appears not to have made public any decision to finalise it or not. I honestly can't see how it could carry out a lawful consultation on major new CPZs without making clear what its parking policy now is. Otherwise how could the public comment in an informed way? A decision was due before the May elections but there seems to be no trace of what was decided. Maybe one of the councillors could comment? Kerbside Strategy: https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/kerbside-strategy/ Decision due Feb 2018: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50015767&Opt=0 Besides lots of useful facts and figures that cover many of the issues raised in this thread, the strategy states 'we currently allocate kerbside space based on a 1950s model. Despite 60 per cent of Southwark households not owning a vehicle and walking being the largest mode share, parking for private vehicles still dominates kerbside space.' It then proposes a policy to prioritise kerbside space for walking and cycling. The reality is that with new housing being built with low or zero car parking (especially high rise), the proportion of Southwark homes owning cars will decrease. But there will still be more parking so absolute number of cars owned is likely to increase, putting more pressure on borough roads, unless car ownership is reduced in some places such as by introducing CPZs. Given the council's legal duties to reduce pollution, obesity etc. and also policy in the Londonwide Mayor's Transport Strategy, doing nothing is not an option. But, as this thread shows, doing anything will be controversial. That said whatever your views Southwark seems to be making a right mess of this, first by not providing an update on the fate of the Kerbside Strategy within a reasonable period, then revealing a half a map of a proposed East Dulwich CPZ in another consultation. No wonder a lot of people are confused and unhappy.

New update from Southwark "Network Rail plan to carry out safety works to the bridge involving replacement of part of the substructure. These works are due to commence in mid May but require the removal of the entire infrastructure above the bridge. Consequently, to avoid opening the bridge for only a few weeks followed by significant disruption removing the recently installed infrastructure, and to significantly reduce the costs to the council, [assuming objections to reopening are overruled] the width restriction, street furniture, and associated traffic signal works will be carried out following completion of the Network Rail works. ...The worst case scenario is that the bridge will be open to 3 tonne vehicles by the beginning of August." http://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/roadworks-and-highway-improvements/bridges-subways-and-walls?chapter=2

Southwark council has quietly published a new interactive map for the borough. Covers everything from places with literary interest to off-licences via just about everything else you can think of. hope of interest https://geo.southwark.gov.uk/connect/analyst/mobile/#/main

Southwark is consulting until 24 January on the Dulwich Traffic Study. Background info here: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy-and-transport-policy/consultation-and-updates/transport-policy And an interactive map where you can support/oppose measures (rather than propose anything new) is here: https://dulwich-study.co.uk/ Generally appears to be an exercise showing something is being done. The study has come up with ideas as simple as: improve wayfinding signage, add cycle parking, new Controlled Parking Zone, monitor traffic etc. E.g. for Lordship Lane the main recommendation is to consider renewing the pavement. Wouldn't it have been more productive to consult on objectives then trying to work out backwards how to achieve those that were supported. Top-of-the-head examples could be: create safe routes for every school, reduce bus delays by 10%, reduce private motor traffic in the area by 10% by 2025. Southwark has real problems with air quality, congestion and child obesity: population growth is likely to increase these pressures. So this study should have come up with a wide range of ideas from simple to radical, short to long-term, to help encourage thinking outside the box. There are some great initiatives elsewhere in London and beyond - that could have provided inspiration. Feels like Southwark is increasingly falling behind other London boroughs when it comes to healthy streets.

Most of this proposal for a 'flagship cycle route', first announced in 2014, seems to be painting a few cycle logos and hoping it will make a big difference. Yeah right. But the bit around the Bellenden one-way system is bonkers. Separating cyclists from drivers then merging them again at junctions is about as stupid an idea as is imaginable. The official design report on the scheme even states: 'there are safety concerns at the location where the protected cycle lane merges with general traffic. It is important to ensure sufficient visibility and a slow operating speed to enable cyclist and car driver to anticipate each other?s movements.' Do councillors really think what would effectively be a game of chicken is going to encourage kids to cycle? https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/roadworks-and-highway-improvements/street-improvements/bellenden-gyratory The other fundamental problem is that it's a terrible use of road space: the cycle tracks would be too narrow to cope with rush hour cycle flows (even before any further increase), while loading vehicles would block the reconfigured carriageways. The report acknowledges 'the lack of road width would result in issues with delivery vans and minibuses stopping in the roadway. These would block traffic, causing congestion. The next design phase should address these issues by providing enough loading zones at appropriate locations. This could also be enabled by designing loading zones that are located partially on the footpath' That was back in 2016 and the problem has just been brushed under the carpet. Southwark Cyclists are highlighting the problems here https://southwarkcyclists.org.uk/new-southwark-spine-proposals/ and calling for people to respond to the consultation before 4 December by rejecting the proposals and taking action to both remove the one-way system and reduce rat-running. https://southwarkcyclists.org.uk/demand-a-safer-spine/

Southwark already has a policy of installing yellow lines on junctions and is gradually doing so. See here: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1650717,page=1 That seems outside the scope of this consultation. It really should make clear what is Business as Usual and what are extra parking changes proposed as part of the spine. A CPZ is likely in these streets before 2020 anyway. Agree 100% that we should be copying Walthamstow, where conditions for walking and cycling were radically improved by cutting out residential rat-running, reducing motor traffic overall. The proposal here to put some extra humps and cycle logos on rat-runs will at best be ineffective. The cycle lanes for the Bellenden gyratory, which a majority of those expressing a view called for removal of a year ago, would disappear when needed most and would be downright dangerous though. While the spine proposals may encourage a few more adults will cycle by signing a new route, they simply won't offer stress free conditions that would encourage more vulnerable people to cycle. This would widen inequality further: already Southwark's children are the 4th most overweight in the UK but adults in London have the lowest rates of obesity. https://www.londonnewsonline.co.uk/lack-of-exercise-is-a-weighty-problem/ The current proposals for the spine will just widen the gap between 20/30 somethings cycling more and children being unable to incorporate exercise into their daily lives. Councillors seem happy to accept awards for their cycling strategy but then too spineless actually implement it.

The biggest farce of this consultation is that it's now been confirmed by officers the traffic figures in the consultation materials included pedal cycles not just motor vehicles. As there has been a record 15% increase in cycling last year in the area (and across central London according to TfL this week), none of the figures about [motor] traffic increasing or decreasing on particular streets can be relied on, undermining the validity of the whole process. e.g. the reported 6% increase on the busiest bit of Bellenden could in fact be a decrease in cycling and increase in driving or vice versa. While the consultation has been divisive in some respects, it has at least highlighted that many local people, whatever their position on the bridge, want action to tackle rat-running through the area to improve air quality and conditions for cycling so it is a safe option for all ages. The most depressing thing is that the officers' report says that something may be done about this but it would take them at least three years, assuming funding could be found. Let's not forget (as they seem to want us to) that the traffic study they did in 2016 was supposed to look into and make recommendations about this. Meanwhile they keep pouring money down the drain with fancy paved junctions ('traffic carpets' in Southwarkspeak) that fall to pieces within months of being built. The messily patched up one at the top of Camberwell Grove provides a fitting monument to these muddled priorities. It will be interesting to find out how local councillors respond at the meetings next week...

Looks like it's going ahead...probably will now need a zone to fill in the remaining unmanaged bit between East Dulwich Road & Copleston Road. From 365 valid responses representing a 15% response rate, 49% of respondents were in favour of a parking zone, 39% were against a parking zone and 12% were undecided. We have recommended that a parking zone is implemented across the whole area operating Monday to Friday, 11am to 1pm. https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/dogkennelhill/

Found out today there has been a known problem with Virgin Media broadband in the East Dulwich area since July - assume this includes as far south as Northcross Rd. The 'service status' page is for some reason saying there are no known issues - this issue itself is now being looked into. Apparently it's a 'signal to noise ratio' problem, basically there is something on the network that is causing interference. So they are switching bits off now and then to test where it might be. Have been having regular downtime including today, for example. The error tracking code is F005469464 and the nice chap on the phone (was really surprised how polite & apologetic he was) said they hope to fix it by Monday 30 October. Let's see though. Not alternative to Virgin here, as on an Exchange Only (EO) line with BT so only got 2Mbps download with no prospect of a fibre upgrade, apparently inner London is worst in UK for these EO lines. When Virgin works it's giving 54Mbps down / 3Mbps up on a SuperFibre 50 contract even in the evening, which is pretty good. Still find it expensive though.

Definitely sympathise with Rupert James about the need to reduce traffic further, particularly when kids are going to/from school. There should be a third consultation option of keeping the bridge closed while taking further measures between Rye Lane and Denmark Hill, particularly around the new Belham primary school. Regarding traffic flows, Southwark has provided a chart here showing traffic is still lower on Chadwick Road than on Camberwell Grove, even with the closure: https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/camberwell-grove-bridge/supporting_documents/Figure%204.%20Summary%20table%20and%20graph%20of%207%20day%20traffic%20flow%20data%20before%20and%20after%20closure.pdf The council do not mention this duty to reopen on its website or in the consultation materials - where are you exactly saying it has? And if it did there wouldn't be much point in a consultation would there? https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/roadworks-and-highway-improvements/bridges-subways-and-walls?chapter=2

That assertion about the council having a duty to reopen the bridge is simply unarguable. Temporary traffic orders exist to enable highway authorities to restrict traffic for reasons like safety. Authorities can either rescind a temporary order or go through the usual consultation processes to make a permanent traffic order. There's a useful rebuttal of that and other points in the leaflet on the Southwark Cyclists website: https://southwarkcyclists.org.uk/camberwell-grove-closure-but-what-about/ As for the main road argument, there are many different classifications in law and policy, such as road hierarchies. Given the constraints of the bridge, meaning one-way shuttle working and significantly increased weight and width restrictions (something not made clear in the consultation) likewise its designation as a cycle quietway, Camberwell Grove is not suitable for significant amounts of motor traffic. Definitely agree that buses are too slow but there's lots of potential to encourage a shift from driving to cycling, so long as there are some safe routes to ride on. That's what the Mayor and Transport for London want to encourage, in order to tackle air pollution and obesity from inactivity.

Is it just me or has anyone else picked up that the consultation is not about reopening the bridge to all traffic (so 5+ years ago) or even pre October 2016 (7.5t weight and 7'2" width restriction)? It's about lowering the weight limit to 3t and narrowing it to 6'6" because this ancient bridge was not designed for the weight of motor vehicles. Besides meaning many of the vehicles that are currently diverting onto other routes would have to continue to divert, the narrowing at both ends will significantly increase the likelihood of drivers getting stuck (and with it road rage), particularly for the left turn out of McNeil Road. It will also slow drivers down considerably, increasing queuing and exhaust fumes. The big problem though is that Southwark's plan for the 3t weight restriction did not take into account some of the largest changes to vehicle weights since the UK joined what was then the EEC in the 1970s. First new weight rules came into force on 1 October to enable all types of vans (small and large) to become heavier: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/vans-to-go-greener-and-cleaner-under-new-plans Second the Toxicity-charge coming into force next week is going to significantly increase the average weight of cars, as drivers upgrade to hybrid & electric vehicles (as much as 30% heavier) to avoid paying it. The combination of heavier vehicles and drivers going at a crawl through the narrower restriction is likely to mean the 3t limit is frequently breached and to knacker the bridge again in no time. There's no legal way to prevent vehicles closely following other than allowing one in each direction at a time through special signals or to employ two PCs to stand there to direct traffic. Have flagged this to council officers over the summer but nothing has changed, I suspect due to political pressure to get something happening before the May 2018 local elections. The consultation risks becoming a farce as the so-called reopening option is neither viable nor safe beyond the very short term: people should have been given enough facts and options to be able to make informed comment.

A very rough summary is that any structure which isn't there only temporarily needs planning permission. There are certain 'permitted development rights' that mean certain forms of development don't need permission. The detail is set out in the rather byzantine General Permitted Development Regulations. Class E covers things like sheds in your back garden but not structures between the front of your home and the street: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/596/schedule/2/made Southwark Council could in the forthcoming New Southwark Plan could approve a 'Local Development Order' (LDO) in order to provide a borough wide exception for specified types of development. While Southwark Cyclists asked them to approve an LDO for cycle stores in front gardens, its suggestions appear to have been ignored in the most recent draft. Hope that helps!