Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Siduhe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The consultation closed two days ago - is this

> when the signs first went up? If so, that implies

> an astonishing disregard for the consultation

> process.


I think the signs must have gone up on friday. Although possibly sat.

LynnB Wrote:


> I have also found this to be my experience in one

> previous local consultation.

> I think people need to remember this when they

> vote for local councillors, and make your

> displeasure known now so that they are aware of

> it.


I just asked James Barber if he could raise this with Southwark.

"Subject: FW: Camberwell Grove bridge


Dear Mr Notice


Thank you for your email for which Councillor Wingfield has asked me to respond with respect to the new signs that have been recently erected.


The signs were erected on Thursday and Friday last week and were to replace the signs that were located on various A frames and other street furniture on the diversion route associated with the current closure of Camberwell Grove at the railway bridge. This was for three reasons:


1. To reduce the costs incurred by the council for the ongoing hire and daily maintenance checks

2. Now that the weather is becoming more wintery, I had some concern that the A frame based signs, even where weighted with sandbags, could become dislodged or be blown into the carriageway presenting a hazard for drivers and pedestrians

3. I have received reports that the signs were being removed or relocated by persons unknown


Residents should on no account be concerned that the more permanent nature of the signs is for any other reason than that stated above, and most certainly not in any anticipation of the result of the current and ongoing consultation. I would reiterate that the new signs are in place purely on safety and economic grounds.


Please do not hesitate to contact me if you should require any further information on the above.


Regards


Dale Foden"


Who do you believe?

The explanation doesn't make commercial sense to me at all (why would you install new signs just at the point you finalise a consultation which could, in theory, lead to the bridge being reopened?), but I also tend to believe it's a true and real explanation - and it's good news for those of us who like to believe that consultations do have an impact.


The timing just sucks and I can't believe they didn't think about how it would look though.

Siduhe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The explanation doesn't make commercial sense to

> me at all (why would you install new signs just at

> the point you finalise a consultation which could,

> in theory, lead to the bridge being reopened?),


At first sight seems odd, but then again it?s sensible in the long run. They need to replace the signs, and don?t yet know whether that?s temporary or forever. Using the ?forever? wording means no need to change again (at more cost) later, and if the decision is not curved then you were always going to have to remove the signs anyway so no harm done. Good commercial foresight.


Now, let?s get that bridge open :)

Even if the decision goes in favour of reopening it is most unlikely the bridge will be sufficiently repaired to open the road to limited traffic in under 6 months - so I suspect the new signage will 'cost-in' even if it is later removed - it will have to be replaced anyway with some signage about weight restrictions etc.


But for those wishing to scrutinise the decision making process here - keep on scrutinising. The simple move now would be to support the status quo (bridge closed) and do nothing. In which case, let's not keep it simple, stupid.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Does anyone know when the next SNT meeting is? I am fed up with my son being mugged on East Dulwich Grove! 
    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...