Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Server Error in '/' Application.


The resource cannot be found.


Description: HTTP 404. The resource you are looking for (or one of its dependencies) could have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable. Please review the following URL and make sure that it is spelled correctly.


Requested URL: /transport-a...

"In addition, building a new bridge further along the track and creating a new footpath from it would necessitate the removal of a significant number of trees. A new footbridge and the associated footpath would be well in excess of ?500,000."


Give me strength. Half a million? We are talking dog walkers and a 20-foot gap over 15 feet of bramble and mud. There isn't an active railway or road. It is merely a crossing from one footpath to another. I know I have the experience of decades, but I can now walk around trees rather than, as I did in my youth, walking straight into them, causing myself untold damage and stressing the NHS.

Just checking I have this correct - the new bit is the ?update? at the end: in recognition of the fact that there is now a tree protection order in place for the two oak trees (thanks to the @SaveOaks campaign), there?s a revised refurb plan for the footbridge which allows the two trees to be retained but no info on cost of new plan, or how many other trees may need to be removed, and there?s a stakeholder meeting in May/ June to discuss - details tbc?


What I found most striking is that the Council were pretty adamant that the campaigners? alternative proposal involving screw piles was not feasible (despite their having got extensive specialist advice that it was possible)- and the new solution says that it involves screw piles! If you read this earlier (Sept 2020) Q and A document the campaigners had some detailed questions about council cost estimates so let?s hope the council have listened to what they have to say on that front as well. Perhaps they should appoint the guys at @SaveOaks to oversee the project and take a share of any savings they identify and make for the council!


https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/24229/Response-to-Questions-rev-.docx

MiniViking Wrote:

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

> Haven?t done this walk for ages. Could someone

> please confirm whether the Cox?s Walk closure

> means that it?s not possible to walk through the

> woods from the Wood House pub in Sydenham down to

> the old Plough pub on Lordship Lane? Thanks


You can still do this. The part of the woods affected by the closure is on the right as you come into the woods from the Wood House direction.


But do you mean the Plough? Or the old Harvester? The entrance to the woods near Lordship Lane is opposite the old Harvester/Grove. The Plough is further down opposite the library.


If you don't walk to walk along main roads to get to it, you could go via the park.

?The part of the woods affected by the closure is on the right as you come into the woods from the Wood House direction.?


Isn?t it on the right as you LEAVE the woods from the WH direction ?

(Or, on the left as you come into the woods from Cox?s Walk).

Unless they?ve moved the footbridge !! 🤣🤣🤔

KidKruger Wrote:

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

> ?The part of the woods affected by the closure is

> on the right as you come into the woods from the

> Wood House direction.?

>

> Isn?t it on the right as you LEAVE the woods from

> the WH direction ?

> (Or, on the left as you come into the woods from

> Cox?s Walk).

> Unless they?ve moved the footbridge !!

> 🤣🤣🤔



I didn't mean immediately on the right, KK. I didn't mean just the footbridge, which yes is at the top of Cox's Walk.


According to the map at the entrance to Cox's Walk, that whole side of the woods which would have been reached by the footbridge is now fenced off 😭


So yes, it's the part of the woods on the right if you are coming from the Wood House.


I was in another part of the woods. I'm assuming the path which used to run from the far side of the footbridge (ie not the Cox's Walk end) is no longer usable in either direction.


Apologies if I'm wrong.

Sue Wrote:

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

>

> I didn't mean immediately on the right, KK. I

> didn't mean just the footbridge, which yes is at

> the top of Cox's Walk.

>

> According to the map at the entrance to Cox's

> Walk, that whole side of the woods which would

> have been reached by the footbridge is now fenced

> off 😭

>

> So yes, it's the part of the woods on the right if

> you are coming from the Wood House.

>

> I was in another part of the woods. I'm assuming

> the path which used to run from the far side of

> the footbridge (ie not the Cox's Walk end) is no

> longer usable in either direction.

>

> Apologies if I'm wrong.


Last time I ran that way you could still enter Cox?s Walk at the top on Sydenham Hill and there was a diversion path before the footbridge that took you along and down to cross the old railway line and head back to the other side of the footbridge. I don?t believe that?s closed off unless it?s a recent change.

I went for a run today and everything other than the bridge itself it open.


To try to answer your question about where the diversion comes out: Coming down the steps from Sydenham hill there is a gate into the woods at the South-Eastern end of the footbridge. The main path runs parallel to Sydenham Woods and exits above the railway tunnel on Crescent Wood Road. There are two paths down to the North-West (Dulwich) side of the woods. A steep path drops down the side of the footbridge to join the path along the old rail bed, it?s then probably 100m to turn right and right again to get back to the other side of the footbridge. If you?re less mobile then there is a gentler path that branches off at the folly and gets you back to the main path through to Dulwich woods.

  • 2 years later...

The bridge work is continuing. The brick abutments have to be removed, new concrete footing installed and the whole thing rebuilt. I imagine, this is before the superstructure of the bridge van be replaced. See photo attached. I doubt it will be finished before the autumn. As for quad bikes getting in, I can’t see how. The western entrance from Cox’s Walk is closed off completely, the eastern entrance is narrow and accessed by steps and a steep hill and it would be impossible to get in via the Crescent Wood Rd gate. Where do these ideas come from?!

IMG_3888.jpeg

  • Thanks 1

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

    • "They sold everyone, directly or indirectly, on the notion that Covid, the energy crisis and the war in Ukraine had nothing to do with the sorry state of the UK and that it was 14 years of Tory rule and Truss' nightmare budget that was the source of all the country's woes. " This simply isn't true. Global issues all play their own parts (as they do with other countries) but the UK govt had  been especially abject for years. Improvements could not be made with them in power. That's not to say everything is all roses when they go To claim parties shouldn't try and sell themselves in an election is absurd - but if labour did overpromise or dig into specifics (which they partly couldn't because they didn't have their hands on the books) then we live in a country where a population and media is happy to punch on them and relect the shabby last govt I mean if any argument I made was supported by some posters I would rethink it but thats just me
    • They just gave woolly and opaque policies on the basis of "we will not increase tax for working people" and then could not clearly define what a working person is. They sold everyone, directly or indirectly, on the notion that Covid, the energy crisis and the war in Ukraine had nothing to do with the sorry state of the UK and that it was 14 years of Tory rule and Truss' nightmare budget that was the source of all the country's woes. the moment they got in they lent in to the notion that change will be slow due to global challenges. The electorate are impatient and Labour were always going to have a huge job to keep people onside and bought in to the (long) journey the country is on to any sort of recovery. Their first 100 days should have been about solidifying the electorate's support for the journey but instead they have lurched from one own-goal to another and I think significantly distanced themselves from the electorate as they have behaved just like the Tories in many aspects of leadership (access to donors, clothing gate). Throw in spin on the £22bn gap (of which around £9bn was based on their own decisions), Winter Fuel payments ending and the attack on farmers (the very definition of working people) and it has been an utter disaster. They have a massive perceptual problem and seem incapable of delivering crisp messages that the people can get behind. Listening to members of the government trying to explain the intricacies and details of much of the aforementioned challenges is utterly painful to watch and people shut off after a couple of sentences. In opposition you can get away with soundbites and when you get scrutinised you can bridge to "14 years of hurt" and "we're not them" and people will buy it. When you're in the hot seat those things sounds hollow and suggest you don't have the answers and people will turn on you very quickly. It is in everyone's interests that they get it right because with a Tory party chasing the far-right vote because of Reform and Reform picking up disillusioned main political party voters then the alternative is really scary. Of course, we also have the threat from within the Labour party itself as if things don't go well for Starmer & co we could find Labour turning on itself.    
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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