Camberwell Grove - road closure / opening (Lounged)

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

unfortunately lateral thinking is not his strong point.

[Mr Bojangles]

Well put lozzyloz

Has anyone got any idea of who the right person to contact at Southwark Council about these issues (aside from the local councillors). If I can't make the meeting, I want to make sure that my views are heard. I expect that the meeting will be over run with like minded people to Maurice who want to create a "mini Chelsea" in SE5 at the expense of the wider community interest. I've found this: [email protected] but not sure if it is the correct channel for these matters.

[Alan Dale]

Traffic lights might reduce traffic but they will mean that the reduced traffic stands still on CG rather than passing through. Turning the street into a traffic jam has to be the worst case.

Frisco - road closure such as this have happened elsewhere. Daneville Road for example has been closed off in the middle which makes for a much quieter Selborne Village. There is still however significant pedestrian traffic through the village as it provides a short cut from the shops to South Camberwell.

I think it is important to separate the issue of traffic from gated communities. Not allowing car access is not the same as keeping people out. I think it should be turned into a pedestrian and cycle route with limited delivery access and unlimited emergency service access.

Car traffic should be restricted to the main arterial roads and savvy car commuters nipping through residential areas should be discouraged.

The arterial roads are clogged and would be even more so but that should encourage people onto public transport or to walk.

Regeneguru has some interesting ideas about applying 20mph speed limits on the main arterial roads and how given the current average speed of 12mph this could actually improve traffic flow. See the parallel discussion on SE5..

http://www.se5forum.org/forum/index.php/topic,589.msg3240.html#msg3240

[Maurice]

Chav indeed we always disagree.

You speak of fighting for the estate. I'm all for providing secure and decent housing for those who need a leg up until they get back on their feet. I do not think they should be places that inspire children to stay for generations though. Safe, secure, services to help get people back on their feet...all fine. But not places that inspire children to move upstairs for yet another generation.

[Frisco]

"Frisco - road closure such as this have happened elsewhere. Daneville Road for example has been closed off in the middle which makes for a much quieter Selborne Village."

Alan Dale, the closure you refer to makes sense in the context of it being immediately next to the shopping centre and its greater potential to be a rat-run.

"I think it is important to separate the issue of traffic from gated communities."

I'm sure you do. However, in this case I suspect the think end of the wedge, and that the main concern is about enhancing property values rather than of safety and the wider public interest.

[Mr Bojangles]

Unfortunately, in this case, the issues are not separate.

Traffic controls should reduce the traffic because people are less likely to use the route. If the bridge remains closed, the traffic just gets displaced to other less appropriate routes where there is a higher risk of an accident. Lyndhurst Grove is narrow and has a School, Grove Park has sharp bends (apparently, there have been accidents here already). And for what purpose? So that the residents of CG can enjoy some peace and quiet and keep out the "'boom boom' cars".

[Alan Dale]

I expect there is more traffic on Bellenden with Camberwell Grove closed. Got to be good for trade down there.

Frisco- I would be interested in enhancing my own houseprice but have no interest in enhancing those on Camberwell Grove. I also think that without on street parking and car access house prices along there would be more likely to fall.

I am a house price whore so I understand why you would accuse me of considering this ahead of the best use of the street but in this case I don't see that Selborne Village values will be affected.

No offence taken!

[Maurice]

Where is Selborne Village?

[downsouth]

This blocked off road actually deters me from shopping in Camberwell as I cannot conveniently get there via car from West Dulwich. I would not take public transport in/from Camberwell. Not a good idea as I have seen on one too many occassions. Back on the point, I think this actually harms Camberwell's crumbling shopping precinct. Taking Denmark Hill at certain times of the day is almost too much to bear.

The car traffic was never that heavy at any rate. Maybe I'll see if I can get my own road in West Dulwich closed off to traffic...

[Maurice]

Do Downsouth - I think it is the way forward. I believe those of us who work very hard to maintain our neighbourhoods and respect communities have gone way beyond the extra mile. Those who have little respect for their own much less our neighbourhoods aren't going to join the responsible brigade so let's just erect walls and leave them to it. If they want to destroy their own homes fine, but please don't destroy mine. Is that too much to ask?

I'm sure Chav will blame me and absolve those who destroy but that's the way I see it. I'm heartned that many of you reading this will gasp a bit but through your silence be thinking 'he's right'.

[Alan Dale]

Maurice Wrote:

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

> Where is Selborne Village?

It's the 1982 Wates housing estate behind Somerfield off Daneville Road - Allendale Close and Kerfield Place in the main..

[Maurice]

Ghastly! I hadn't realised it had earned the title of 'village'. How very quaint!

[Alan Dale]

As I said to JohnnyM on Camberwellonline- that?s my home. You are entitled to your opinion but I?m saddened that you have such a low opinion of the village.

It is a Wates development built in 1982. It is mostly 2 bed ?cottages? but there are some flats at the Western end of Allendale Close and there are a couple of detached homes at the entrance to Allendale on Love Walk.

Most of the ?cottages? have garages and rear gardens with separate rear access. I actually think that the layout is great as there are lots of nooks and crannies providing privacy and there are a number of mature trees that predate the development.

The one way system around Daneville Road ensures that there is no through traffic and consequently the streets are quiet enough for the local kids to play out on their bikes.

Whilst I accept that there are prettier houses in the area I think that the Village is a functional and a very pleasant environment in which to live.

No offence taken by the way!

http://www.camberwellonline.co.uk/2007/10/doing-the-windsor-walk-oi/#comment-49765

[downsouth]

It doesn't make sense Maurice. London's streets weren't designed for cars and with the little bit of tarmac we have you want to cause more congestion. What exactly do you expect the heathens to do to your home if they can once again drive along Camberwell Grove? Petrol bomb, throw a brick through the window, wave bright shiny palcards with the word "boo" embalzened in gold? Really, you have to share the city with everyone and closing off roads is counter productive.

As a left field thought and a compromise, why not put in a toll booth like the one on college Road? that way the money raised can pay for the road and bridges upkeep and levels of traffic won't be so high.

[lozzyloz]

I certainly don't side with those that would damage your property / harm your person but the point I was making earlier was that by erecting walls and ignoring proper solutions will not remove the problem. If someone is intent on targetting you and your home then they will regardless of having to use more force, aggression and violence. However these people are still a minority.

You could always live in a home with a proper private road or security gates but why stop otherwise innocent people from using a public road paid for through public taxes and council rates?

[Maurice]

Pardon my (slight) hyperbole, I've been to JoBurgh and don't wish to become that. But my point is we will put the blame and responsibility once again on those of us who are always working very hard and paying through the nose.

'Bad rich people' trying to protect their turf from the 'poor disadvantaged souls'. A bit more balance in finding a solution that caters for everyone but holds those accountable who are intent on destruction would be welcomed.

[Maurice]

And apologies Alan. I hadn't realised you lived there. Had they been built in 1882 I'd be more sympathetic, which I realise is snobbish. 1982 explains a lot. I'm sure its residents are utterly charming.

[*Bob*]

Maurice, has your home suffered any damage at the hands of the Camberwell Yoot?

[Maurice]

Indeed. Twice on a large scale but actually more importantly, the daily tossing of rubbish bothers me even more. And it isn't just yoots, it is fully grown folk tossing their beer cans and even needles. A needle exchange wouldn't go amiss.

Ooops...

[Alan Dale]

Maurice Wrote:

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

> And apologies Alan. I hadn't realised you lived

> there. Had they been built in 1882 I'd be more

> sympathetic, which I realise is snobbish. 1982

> explains a lot. I'm sure its residents are

> utterly charming.

No need to apologise. The beauty of these forums is that you can honestly tell me that I live in a place you consider ghastly without fear of reprisal.

Whilst I would like to convince you, and others, that it's not as you believe I am not interested in just having you hide your honest opinion behind a vale of politeness.

That is what I would expect you to do if I met you in person.

[*Bob*]

What constitutes a 'large scale'?

[RuthE]

Maurice Wrote:

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

> Chav indeed we always disagree.

>

> You speak of fighting for the estate. I'm all for

> providing secure and decent housing for those who

> need a leg up until they get back on their feet.

> I do not think they should be places that inspire

> children to stay for generations though. Safe,

> secure, services to help get people back on their

> feet...all fine. But not places that inspire

> children to move upstairs for yet another

> generation.

I'm not going to bother getting into the argument of whether council tenants "deserve" less consideration than others (though I agree with you on one point, which is that the expectation and, possibly, need of council housing should not be passed on from generation to generation).

However, on another point, most council estates now contain a significant number of privately owner-occupied or privately tenanted homes. By your argument, all the crud from town planning decisions should consistently be pushed into the same areas, making them increasingly unpleasant places to live. Surely the net result would be the perpetuation and worsening of sink estates.

[Maurice]

Excellent point RuthE. The new 'mixed use' strategy. Is it working? It seems to me these mixed use estates are now filled with 'for sale' signs. The private owners are frustrated and moving.

Does anyone have such experience?

Perhaps I've signalled the 'lounge' announcement....

[Maurice]

Bob I'd rather not get too technical, but it was two break-ins generally. And not just to steal but to destroy. I would've gladly given them cash at the door (had I been home) instead of them feeling the need to destroy things that cannot be replaced and wipe human excrement all over antique furniture.

But it's my fault for treasuring such items handed down to me or rescued from destruction. I'm to blame no doubt.

[Mr Bojangles]

We are just talking about opening a public road, in a reduced capacity, that benefits the wider community.

No-one condones criminal damage or theft and I'm struggling to see how the two (opening the bridge / crime) are connected. Do these people drive to your house to toss their cans and needles and break in? If this is the case which I seriously doubt, then this will still occur cause the road will still be open for access; you just won't be able to cross the bridge.