Camberwell Grove - road closure / opening (Lounged)

[Maurice]

Alas one did not attend, as I knew the outcome already (predicted in this very thread). It's a no-brainer, but you can't blame us for trying.

[*Bob*]

So.. you spent weeks banging-on about it on here (thus perpetuating THE most pointless thread we've had for months) but couldn't even be arsed to go to the meeting?

Nice one!

[rceb]

It was fairly clear from the meeting that there was never any chance the road would get permanently shut so i'm not sure why Southwark didn't stamp out the idea earlier in the year. And, apart from total re-build, there is only one safe option for re-opening it, traffic lights with single lane width restriction. So why they waited to make a final decision after the meeting escapes me. To me, the meeting was there to communicate the proposal and so locals could vent their frustration.

What we now need to do is keep up the pressure on Southwark and Network Rail to develop a re-build solution, so the traffic lights can be removed. The key to all of this is NR booking a weekend possession of the track to demolish the old and lift in a new bridge. These possessions can take many months/years to arrange and only happen on a few periods during the year so early planning could shave years off the construction. It can be done at the same time as the overdue traffic strategy for Camberwell and Peckham which the residents/councillors were demanding.

[Maurice]

Indeed recb, you are correct. Bob hasn't read my previous posts, which clearly show I saw the writing on the road. There was no need to fight it.

[RoadProAndy]

How very refreshing to hear some common sense from recb who obviously knows what he's talking about. Let me know if there's anything I can do to keep up the pressure.

As for Maurice, why not move to Grove Park? The peace and tranquility which you've enjoyed in the Grove will soon be restored and we can get in some AK-47 practise in Lettsom Gardens.

Andrew

[*Bob*]

Maurice Wrote:

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

Bob hasn't read my

> previous posts, which clearly show I saw the

> writing on the road. There was no need to fight

> it.

Basically you thought you'd lose, so you couldn't be bothered. Poor attitude.

[Maurice]

Bob you clearly haven't understood me, poor soul. Not only did I 'think we'd lose', I believe we should've 'lost'. I think my position on that has been clear. I only bemoaned the fact that we couldn't win (I was sure we wouldn't and for that matter, shouldn't).

Now we can look forward to severe back-ups along the road. I may try and offer a window washing service for donations.

[Alan Dale]

A traffic light will make the street a permanent traffic jam.

Really cr@p idea.

I think it's just posh bashing, a bit like the hunting ban. Gives the little guy a feeling of smug satisfaction that he managed to poke a finger in the eye of his more privileged overlords but in reality achieves nothing of any political or moral significance.

My preference would be to pedestrianise but as that doesn't seem realistic then I'd prefer it to be a one way street flowing South to North so that drivers from ED could come to Camberwell but couldn't escape with the same ease..

[Maurice]

Now that would be interesting. I'd much rather have East Dull-ites coming in than rift raft passing from our way over. Alan, you've sorted the problem. The street is to remain open, but travelled by only the better classes.

[David Mc]

LC lives in a flat in a gated community north of Camberwell Church St. Or did a couple of years ago anyway!

[rceb]

nobody thinks that traffic lights are a fantastic solution. Unforetunately it is the only safe solution. This was spelt out at the meeting. It safely caters for pedestrians, cyclists, drivers and the residents of the surrounding diversion route streets. In the words of the traffic officer, the partial aim of lights and width restriction is to slow down traffic thereby discouraging non-local drivers. and its only for the medium term whilst Network Rail get around to replacing the bridge.

and "posh bashing", "political or moral significance". you're missing the facts - ITS A ROAD.

[Mr Bojangles]

Alan

It is certainly not posh bashing. That's a ridiculous thing to say. There has been a few jokes at Maurice's expense which he has been happy (generally) to play along with.

Did you even attend the meeting and listen to the arguments? These arguments have been well rehearsed and don't need to be repeated again.

The traffic lights are only supposed to be a temporary solution until the bridge can be repaired. No-one really wants traffic lights but it is (according to the experts) the safest solution for the time being. The council agreed to look at the whole issue of traffic management in the area. And that's what this exercise was about - traffic management not posh bashing

[Alan Dale]

I wasn't at the meeting and I'm not a member of the Countryside Alliance but I can still see when people are delighting in flying in the face of the wishes of their wealthier neighbours.

I'm sure you're the same crowd who killed off the countryside from your London based Old Labour strongholds.

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

My daughter, who lives in a council flat in an adjacent road, was dancing round her garden with delight because for once the posh tw@ts weren't able to stick one up their chav neighbours.

[Maurice]

What joy! I'm delighted for her. I, too, would dance with glee if given a free flat with garden in Camberwell Grove at the young age of 19, just for having a baby. I'm honestly happy she's able to drive her car more easily - a key plank, no doubt, of the Green Party.

It's a joyful day for all. Well done, the road is open.

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

She doesn't drive, but thanks for your heartfelt congratulations.

[Mr Bojangles]

Alan

Your comments are idiotic. The three camps that argued most strongly against the road being closed were based in the North side of camberwell grove, lyndhurst grove and grove park. There is no wealth issue with these camps (these are affluent areas); just a community that argued articulately that the road should be opened for the greater good.

I should stick to commenting on issues that affect "selbourne village"

Lets not turn this into a class debate because it was never about that.

[rceb]

agreed, lets stick to the issues rather than decend into a bout of half jokes and vindictiveness.

lets get things straight, this was never about if the road should be re-opened, it was when and how to do it safety. Its a god damn road and has been for centuries and it was only because it was damaged was it shut. If NR had fixed it the day after it would never have come to these arguments. Its got absolutely nothing to do with who lives on the road.

I don't live on GC but use it daily as a pedestrian and agree that having it used as a rat run is in nobody's interest. However this is a completely separate matter to the temporary closure and needs to be considered in an area wide study. After this, along with other measures, it may be shown that the community is better served with closing the road.

As mentioned above, I suggest we concentrate our efforts on getting Southwark and NR to carry out a traffic strategy and replace the bridge.

[Alan Dale]

The second post on the thread refers to the residents of SE5s most desirable road and the fact they are probably happy to keep it closed.

Throughout the thread thereafter there are a number of comments about how wealthy people in this area are and you don't have to be Maurice to pick up on the underlying sentiment.

As for being god damned idiotic and sticking to Selbourne issues then I think you are just trying to wind me up or oppress my opinion. Either way I still think we should let the toffs back on their horses and out into the countryside to kill.

With regard to the closure of the road then I would like to see it remain shut - it makes for a much more pleasant walk when I take my fellow peasants from 'selbourne village' on their through the keyhole walking tour of how the other half live. Now I'll be worried that the stragglers will be knocked down by speeding boom-boom cars.

[Mr Bojangles]

You needn't worry about being knocked down as you'll be able to cross the road at the traffic lights. Also, CG is a wide straight road with big pavements protected by trees so you won't get into any scrapes (unlike some of the surrounding roads which are also equally salubrious if you wanted to extend your tour).

I'm sorry but it is a little daft to equate opening a public road and fox hunting. If there's been an underlying sentiment, it is one of NIMBYism which is not posh bashing. I don't count chav's and maurice's interactions cause they always bash each other regardless of the issue.

The CG closure is an emotive issue for the surrounding residents because of a number of accidents due to the displaced traffic. The Selbourne Village comment is a reference to the fact that you shouldn't be continuingly calling for the closure of the road where one (i) you are not directly affected by this otherwise than enjoying walking on the road as there are no cars (which is the case for every road anywhere), (ii) you weren't at the meeting to hear all the issues, (iii) you haven't participated in any neighbourhood or council discussions on this issue.

If you'd have come to the meeting and heard all the arguments and still felt the same way, then fair enough. But you can't comment from afar and then label a decision "posh bashing" or akin banning fox hunting when your only involvement has been to comment on this forum.

[Maurice]

Of course you are correct Mrs BJ but do give poor Alan a pass. He is infected with 'Camberwell-ism', which is a condition whereby dozens of folks shout from the sidelines and debate the issues ad naseum but never do anything. You'll have noted some of that with the recent needle bru-ha-ha in East Dulwich. I'm equally guilty, though I point out I knew the outcome, knew it was right and simply stated my own personal wish, despite knowing it was in vain.

Read over on the chat boards in Camberwell. It's a hoot. Everybody has all the answers but no one ever does anything. Oh I do beg your pardon on the Baths folks. They did manage a delightful turnout and have saved the day it appears. I say they should just all move to ED. You all have far more do-ers and you're getting millions for your Leisure Centre first time lucky!

As for my ongoing fued with Chav, I'll simply make this mature comment in hopes of ending it. She started it!!!!

[Alan Dale]

As to whether I can or can't comment then I think you'll find that I can and do. You may not take it seriously but that is your perogative. I think you're just annoyed though BJ because your street isn't as good as the Grove. At least you can always look down your nose at 'Selbourne Village'.

And as for the inability of the people of Camberwell to take action other than gossip online then I accept that is a fair criticism. I posted something to that effect on Camberwellonline recently but no-one did anything about it!

[Mr Bojangles]

It's good that you comment; i'd just rather you got your facts straight on the reasons for people calling for the road to be opened before labelling everyone as posh bashers.

Otherwise, post away...

[Alan Dale]

Mr Bojangles Wrote:

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

> It was rather fun.

>

> I thought the CG residents (those who wanted the

> road to remained closed) were made to look rather

> silly and totally selfish.

Finding it 'rather fun' but definitely not posh bashing were you BJ?

[*Bob*]

Someone please lounge this sucka.

Before I lose the will to live.