Loughborough Junction public space improvements - consultation begins

[Jute]

Blocking off loughborough road from coldharbour is pure insanity...it is and always has been a primary route for locals to go from south east to south west, and vice versa. That's why the road and pavements are wider than most. I'm not sure who else from locals and a few savvy taxi/delivery drivers would be using this route anyway?

I also lost my rose-coloured glasses a few years back, and as soon as I heard about these proposals I immediately wondered if any property developments were planned (think there is another planned in the old charles edward brook school on cormont road too - along the 'quiet route'). From my own experience in southwark (and hearing about the disgraceful events in elephant and castle), councils set themselves a target to fulfil whatever policy is being heralded at the time (new housing at the moment), and then strive to attain it regardless of any logical, practical or financial reason not to. (Ref Heygate estate in E&C which cost the council more money to relocate residents than they made from the sale of the prime development land.)

I'll pass on the meeting info to others, and will try to come if i can.

 

[editor]

I've posted up a piece in B Buzz about this:
http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/10/...consultations-over-major-redevelopment-plans/

Apparently the images I've been using show the development off in a good light, so I'm hoping to be forwarded illustrations of some of the even less attractive proposals.

 

[cuppa tee]

I'm confused........is the public space consultation linked to the proposed Higgs Triangle development or are the two unrelated ?

 

[Crispy]

I'm confused........is the public space consultation linked to the proposed Higgs Triangle development or are the two unrelated ?

They are unrelated

 

[editor]

I'm confused........is the public space consultation linked to the proposed Higgs Triangle development or are the two unrelated ?

Sorry about that. I over muti-tasked myself.

 

[upthejunction]

I'm back. The news is this.
1) There is one more public meeting on the LJ roadblocking plan at 6.30 pm on Wednesday 15 October 2014 in Longfield Hall, Knatchbull Road, Myatt’s field
2. The Higgs developent is not apprrently opposed by LJAG (who have been the representatives of the community in all the discussions about proposed regeneration of the LJ area. There is a meetign on this on 14 October 2014 - I think at the sunshine cafe. My view is it could do with a bit of development but apparently lots of local businesses, including natioally known artisans/art people are being driven out of LJ by overpriced rates, etc in favour of these developments.

The normal LJAG meeting has come and gone on 7 October 2014.

I have been promised an asnwer on my email by Lambeth (so they received it) - presumably I will get it on 21 October! I should also say that the best way to put pressure on them is to contact the coldharbour ward councillors (LB lambeth site makes it easy to find them and their email addresses and it works as I have done it in the past - here it is http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/mgFindMember.aspx?XXR=0&AC=WARD&WID=349&sPC=Enter postcode) or Tessa Jowell MP - email her and find a surgery to talk to her before 22 October. I will try, but up to ears in **rk.

 

[CH1]

1) There is one more public meeting on the LJ roadblocking plan at 6.30 pm on Wednesday 15 October 2014 in Longfield Hall, Knatchbull Road, Myatt’s field
2. The Higgs developent is not apprrently opposed by LJAG (who have been the representatives of the community in all the discussions about proposed regeneration of the LJ area. There is a meetign on this on 14 October 2014 - I think at the sunshine cafe. My view is it could do with a bit of development but apparently lots of local businesses, including natioally known artisans/art people are being driven out of LJ by overpriced rates, etc in favour of these developments.
I have been promised an asnwer on my email by Lambeth (so they received it) - presumably I will get it on 21 October! I should also say that the best way to put pressure on them is to contact the coldharbour ward councillors (LB lambeth site makes it easy to find them and their email addresses and it works as I have done it in the past - here it is http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/mgFindMember.aspx?XXR=0&AC=WARD&WID=349&sPC=Enter postcode) or Tessa Jowell MP - email her and find a surgery to talk to her before 22 October. I will try, but up to ears in **rk.

I am confused by your post.

Regarding the road blocking, I made my comments and put them in the box at the community centre. A guy from LETRA asked to interview me on camera fro some reason (I don't think this counts as part of the consultation though). That consultation is still going on until 22nd October - and can also be complete online http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/consultations/loughborough-junction-public-space-improvements

Higgs Triangle - what you say about local businesses is quite right IMHO. Regarding LJAG's position - I thought they were hoping to get the application withdrawn until a fuller evaluation of the site by council planners had been made. I don't speak for them mind. (and there is another thread devoted to this BTW)

P.S. The Loughborough Road situation is relevant to Coldharbour councillors, but Higgs Triangle comes under Herne Hill.

 

[upthejunction]

I meant though the consultation is gong on until 22 Oct there is another public meeting - these are likely to be more effective means of getting locals views known as the consultation results could easily not reflect the individual views (as has happened on other LA road consultations I have seen), whereas a public meeting is..er...public.

Not sure about LJAG view on Higgs as a whole - they told me they weren't in principle against high rise apartments. I am not sure what I think about this as I have long thought that LJ was an area which was bound to beome desirable because of its proximity to the centre and good transport links - while this is likely to mean gentrification, if planned and achieved sensitively, I think it would be good given it is pretty much an urban wasteland at the moment in terms of facilities (private and public) - but the jury is out on whether this is happening at the moment. it is however bad that an area where there are some valued artisans (e.g. a moulder who does stuff for artists like Anish Kapoor, another is a nationally known classic car restorer), which give the area some of its character and which could and should be regarded as valuable resources to Lambeth, are being forced out without any thought or consideration, inlcudign whetehr they could co-habit and/or make it known as a proper artisan area.

 

[ricbake]

I am a car owner, I also walk and cycle although I use the car more than I really need to because its convenient and I'm lazy. I accept that I need to be persuaded to change my habits for reasons of sustainability, pollution, fitness, congestion etc. Everyone should be considering making fewer car journeys, particularly the shorter ones.

The idea of closing Loughbourgh Road at Coldharbour Lane to through traffic is principally driven by LJAG in their desire to improve their space, but it is about reduced traffic in the whole Vassall area. The Council will put in the closures, initially temporarily for about 6 months. It is an experiment, instead of traffic modeling because modeling is thought to be too expensive and not very reliable.

Variations to the current plan
The whole area should be a designated 20mph zone. The position of the associated closures of Barrington Road, Gordon Grove, Lillford Road and Calais Street, need to be better thought out, moved, made one way or additional one way and/or no entry points added.
Various routes via Knatchbull Road and Carew Street through to Mostyn Road and the north end of Loughborough Road are still cross routes for through traffic. The Lambeth / Southwark border of Denmark Rd and Flodden Road will see at lot more traffic as it is the obvious alternate route North for many of the cars that currently come from (and return South to) Dulwich, Herne Hill and beyond. These issues need to be addressed before the closures are put in otherwise the experiment will fail.

This radical project is just a step in improving the streets in our area, it is designed to improve the quality of life for the majority of residents and it deserves a chance based on the facts listed below.

The measures that were consulted on in the Neighbourhood Enhancement Program now ready to go in and will also help. These are not designed to solve the commuter parking problems but will change the way that cars use our roads. The Councillors, Council Officers and all of us know a CPZ is the only thing that will solve the parking issue, but the budget has to be found.

I hope to make it to the meeting at Longfield Hall on the 15th, see you there

• The Vassall Ward area bordered by Coldharbour Lane, Denmark Road, Flodden Road, Camberwell New Road, Vassall Road, Brixton Road, Gresham Road is an almost entirely residential enclave and sorely in need of controlled parking, a fact very few disagree with for all the reasons identified by the Myatts Field Parking Group.

• Less than 1 in four households in Vassall Ward have a car.

• The Myatts Field North development is increasing the local population by about 10%, (may be 200 additional cars, at 1/4 households).

• London suffers from congestion, and there is a limit to the capacity of the roads

• Private cars on through journeys should be keeping to A roads and "rat runs" through residential areas should be discouraged through various traffic calming measures.

• Pedestrians should be safe and walking encouraged, particularly routes to the schools and parks

• Cycling should be encouraged and be safe

• We are well served by public transport with 3 overground stations, 2 underground stations and numerous bus services, not far to walk for most people in this area.

• In future a CPZ would reduce traffic further because there will no longer be cars driving round expecting to find free parking.

• A CPZ will cost in the region of £400,000 to implement, but money for this project is from a budget that can't used for a CPZ.

• The pressure being exerted to get a CPZ is being felt and continuing the pressure will be fruitful in time. It is less than 5 years since the last consultation failed.

 

[editor]

I hope to make it to the meeting at Longfield Hall on the 15th, see you there

If possible, it would be great if you could write it up for B Buzz so more people get to know about the proposals.

 

[cuppa tee]

The pressure being exerted to get a CPZ is being felt and continuing the pressure will be fruitful in time. It is less than 5 years since the last consultation failed.

can I just ask what you mean by "failed" ?
surely a consultation just establishes what the majority of residents want

 

[ricbake]

can I just ask what you mean by "failed" ?
surely a consultation just establishes what the majority of residents want

The consultation in 2009/10 was for a proposal for the Camberwell M CPZ - the proposal met a campaign of opposition from a group who put a lot of time and effort into lobbying for negative responses. The proposal failed.
I understand that group now have now realized that as the area is grinding to a halt under the pressure of commuter parking and abandonded vehicles etc they are likely to be in favour of a CPZ now.

http://www.vassallview.com/2010/01/residents-consulted-on-proposed.html

 

[ricbake]

If possible, it would be great if you could write it up for B Buzz so more people get to know about the proposals.

Will see what I can do...

 

[upthejunction]

To ricbake - From the current proposal:
"During the trial period the council will closely monitor the speed and volume of traffic in
streets across the area and compare this to the speed and volumes counts taken before
the changes."

1. I understood from LB Lambeth that they had not done any meaningful monitoring due to roadworks so how are they going to compare anything?
2. My anecdotal evidence would be that the area is not used that much for ratruns so much as for parking as there are no controls (supporting your view) but if there is no primary data what do they know that may justify any experiment or change? How does anyone know if any roads are used as ratruns, or to what degree, and if they are a problem? What is wrong with getting primary data as a first stage (counting, etc, not traffic modelling - that is a later stage if used & BTW seems to be required by TfL in certain circumstances)?
3. Closure of Loughborough Road does not prevent people who are trying to get to Brixton Road from Herne Hill, etc - as it is people use Wiltshire Road/Villa Road and Lilford Road. Of course if Lambeth had done any research on the area that they were willing to share we may actually have some facts on which to base our opinions, rather than just guesstimating/speculating like desperate Phil Space type journalists.
4. Why has there been no meaningful effort to consult with locals before any proposal or experiment affects at least some of them?
5. Just because you are an admirably high-minded car driver why should that dictate what is best for everyone else? It would be difficult for me to do some of my work (being self-employed) if the current experiment runs, let alone take my daughter to various places she goes to that happen to be on the other side of the tracks (Could someone please record a version of "Across Coldharbour Lane" (a la Bobby Womack) for the next public meeting?) Of course I don't say that my views/needs should supercede the community's interests, or indeed the planet's if global warming/pollution is the concern. However, I don't think they should be totally ignored. Or rather I think they should only be ignored after I, and others like me, have had a chance to input before any proposal is made to change or experiment. Then, and only then, can they fairly and justly ignore me.
6. How do you know the costs involved if the area was made a controlled parking zone? Are you involved with an interested group who has actual information? Please share (the information I mean).

 

[cuppa tee]

The consultation in 2009/10 was for a proposal for the Camberwell M CPZ - the proposal met a campaign of opposition from a group who put a lot of time and effort into lobbying for negative responses. The proposal failed.
I understand that group now have now realized that as the area is grinding to a halt under the pressure of commuter parking and abandonded vehicles etc they are likely to be in favour of a CPZ now.

http://www.vassallview.com/2010/01/residents-consulted-on-proposed.html

lol .......... where did "the proposal" originate ?

 

[ricbake]

felicitations one and all as this is my first post on this forum and i apologise for resurrecting this topic however the council have extended the deadline on the consultation process until the 22 of Jan 2010 and so the issue is still live.

Now as with the op i am undecided on the issue but i am inclined to reject the idea of cpz's on many points which i hope pro-cpz afficianado's can illuminate me on. .......
but maybe someone who likes the idea of cpz's could say why i should support this as i have no preconceptions about some ones worth or rights as a human based on what job they do or how much they earn.

lol .......... where did "the proposal" originate ?

Lambeth Council

 

[LadyV]

This radical project is just a step in improving the streets in our area, it is designed to improve the quality of life for the majority of residents and it deserves a chance based on the facts listed below.

No offence but very few of the facts that you mention really apply to the closing of the junction of Coldharbour Lane and Loughborough Road, well certainly not right at the junction, we don't have and quite frankly don't really have the need for controlled parking and the junction certainly isn't a rat run, more of an essential artery through the area, maybe nearer to Myatts Fields you get into rat run territory and have the need for a CPZ but I really don't believe that closing the junction is the answer to those issues. I'm all in favour of making areas safer for pedestrians and cyclists but I genuinely think closing that junction will cause far more problems than it will solve.

RicBake I'm guessing you don't live that close to the actual closed junction, if you did, you would know what havoc it being closed has caused in the past, not just for traffic, which is a nightmare in the surrounding areas but also for anti-social behaviour. I live just minutes from the junction and when the road is closed and people can generally hang around without the fear of traffic, there's more trouble, there's more rubbish which doesn't get collected that often when the junction is open, never mind when it's closed and it's generally not a very pleasant place to be. Are these things that have been thought about during this process? I'm sure these are issues you don't have to put up with near the green open spaces of Myatts Fields but it's a real issue for us, we want to be able to walk home without being intimidated, spat on, shouted at etc and having cars around makes that easier because it stops the big groups of people hanging around. Maybe if the closure coincided with the local shops alcohol licences being removed then it wouldn't be so bad but I doubt that will happen.

I realise this probably makes me sound like a proper drama queen but I just want to be safe walking home from the bus stops/tube stops/train stations you mention and unless the closure comes with extra police/cameras/dispersement order, it's not going to work for me. Of course I would like the area to look better and sure, losing the cars would be nice but having people driving around makes me feel safer.

 

[ricbake]

To ricbake - From the current proposal:
"During the trial period the council will closely monitor the speed and volume of traffic in
streets across the area and compare this to the speed and volumes counts taken before
the changes."

1. I understood from LB Lambeth that they had not done any meaningful monitoring due to roadworks so how are they going to compare anything?
2. My anecdotal evidence would be that the area is not used that much for ratruns so much as for parking as there are no controls (supporting your view) but if there is no primary data what do they know that may justify any experiment or change? How does anyone know if any roads are used as ratruns, or to what degree, and if they are a problem? What is wrong with getting primary data as a first stage (counting, etc, not traffic modelling - that is a later stage if used & BTW seems to be required by TfL in certain circumstances)?
3. Closure of Loughborough Road does not prevent people who are trying to get to Brixton Road from Herne Hill, etc - as it is people use Wiltshire Road/Villa Road and Lilford Road. Of course if Lambeth had done any research on the area that they were willing to share we may actually have some facts on which to base our opinions, rather than just guesstimating/speculating like desperate Phil Space type journalists.
4. Why has there been no meaningful effort to consult with locals before any proposal or experiment affects at least some of them?
5. Just because you are an admirably high-minded car driver why should that dictate what is best for everyone else? It would be difficult for me to do some of my work (being self-employed) if the current experiment runs, let alone take my daughter to various places she goes to that happen to be on the other side of the tracks (Could someone please record a version of "Across Coldharbour Lane" (a la Bobby Womack) for the next public meeting?) Of course I don't say that my views/needs should supercede the community's interests, or indeed the planet's if global warming/pollution is the concern. However, I don't think they should be totally ignored. Or rather I think they should only be ignored after I, and others like me, have had a chance to input before any proposal is made to change or experiment. Then, and only then, can they fairly and justly ignore me.
6. How do you know the costs involved if the area was made a controlled parking zone? Are you involved with an interested group who has actual information? Please share (the information I mean).

1. I don't think LBL have done any monitoring recently - they will probably rely on anecdotal evidence from residents groups involved in the consultations
2. Anecdotal evidence from the Myatts Field Park groups, PACCA, LJAG and anyone with any experience of Loughborough Road from 5 ways to Brixton Road would suggest there was a problem -
3. Is that the Angel Park Gardens / Minet Road "rat run"?
4. The consultation is currently ongoing - see you at Longfield Hall 18:30 on the 15th October - online comment also an option to the 22nd.
5. Nobody is being ignored - it is about looking for a consensus to deal with a problem - and making the streets more pleasant to walk or cycle with our children/grandchildren.
6. I've asked. The consultation process; the traffic orders; the signage; the road marking; etc.

I am connected with a local TRA, Myatts Field Parking Group, contribute to the Stockwell and Vassall Leaseholder Forum and Leasehold Council; I've been involved with Brixton Energy who have 2 projects in the area; I first campaigned for traffic calming in the area as far back as 2001 when my son was 5 and making daily use of Myatts Field Park. You could say I am a concerned and active Local Citizen.
I also have the advantage of managing a building where the Council rent space giving me some connection with numerous different Council Officers.

 

[ricbake]

No offence but very few of the facts that you mention really apply to the closing of the junction of Coldharbour Lane and Loughborough Road, well certainly not right at the junction, we don't have and quite frankly don't really have the need for controlled parking and the junction certainly isn't a rat run, more of an essential artery through the area, maybe nearer to Myatts Fields you get into rat run territory and have the need for a CPZ but I really don't believe that closing the junction is the answer to those issues. I'm all in favour of making areas safer for pedestrians and cyclists but I genuinely think closing that junction will cause far more problems than it will solve.

RicBake I'm guessing you don't live that close to the actual closed junction, if you did, you would know what havoc it being closed has caused in the past, not just for traffic, which is a nightmare in the surrounding areas but also for anti-social behaviour. I live just minutes from the junction and when the road is closed and people can generally hang around without the fear of traffic, there's more trouble, there's more rubbish which doesn't get collected that often when the junction is open, never mind when it's closed and it's generally not a very pleasant place to be. Are these things that have been thought about during this process? I'm sure these are issues you don't have to put up with near the green open spaces of Myatts Fields but it's a real issue for us, we want to be able to walk home without being intimidated, spat on, shouted at etc and having cars around makes that easier because it stops the big groups of people hanging around. Maybe if the closure coincided with the local shops alcohol licences being removed then it wouldn't be so bad but I doubt that will happen.

I realise this probably makes me sound like a proper drama queen but I just want to be safe walking home from the bus stops/tube stops/train stations you mention and unless the closure comes with extra police/cameras/dispersement order, it's not going to work for me. Of course I would like the area to look better and sure, losing the cars would be nice but having people driving around makes me feel safer.

I am still to be fully persuaded that losing Loughborough Road as a feeder route for vehicles to and from the city centre is viable. But if not there where else could you cut off the through traffic that only bring exhaust fumes and road danger to the local residents?
There is a lot of effort at Coldharbour Lane / Loughborough Road to improve the area http://7-bridges.org/ http://www.loughboroughjunction.org/take-your-idea-for-a-test-run-in-loughborough-junction

 

[cuppa tee]

Lambeth Council

So the Lambeth councillor who told me the proposal had been put to consultation because of pressure from a small but organised and motivated group of residents centred around Myatts Field Park was incorrect ?

 

[ricbake]

So the Lambeth councillor who told me the proposal had been put to consultation because of pressure from a small but organised and motivated group of residents centred around Myatts Field Park was incorrect ?

Sounds about right... The Council always jump up and take notice of "small but organised and motivated group of residents"

This is where it originated Camberwell M Controlled Parking Zone

This is the councils most recent look at the area NEP Consultation

Small relative to what, there are nearly 300 signatures attached to the current campaign? - certainly organised and motivated groups of residents have lobbied and are lobbying to have the issue revisited
http://myattsfieldparking.wordpress.com/abandoned-vehicles/
http://www.minet.org.uk/news/3089455

 

[CH1]

Don't know about the rights and wrongs of all this but I saw a public notice posted on the huge fence surrounding the vacant land on the corner of Minet Road and Lilford Road.

Both LJAG and Lambeth Council get it in the neck.

 

[Jute]

Various routes via Knatchbull Road and Carew Street through to Mostyn Road and the north end of Loughborough Road are still cross routes for through traffic

Are you supporting the increased use of these roads for traffic? Carew road appears to be mostly commercial (correct me if im wrong) but looks relatively narrow so could it take the increase? Knatchbull road is a wholly residential street with (from what i've seen) a well used local park that serves the area, notably the nearby council estates which don't have the benefit of private gardens - increasing traffic along this route would be counter-productive to improving "the quality of life for the majority of residents". Shifting the traffic from some residential streets (not to mention a major thoroughfare such as Loughborough road) to other residential streets is not solving the problem, it is shifting it to the sole detriment of those who are unfortunate enough to live on those roads.

I agree that small motivated groups get the attnetion of councils, but it is the council's duty to ensure it properly consults with all residents about their needs and desires, rather than assuming the view of the few is the view of the many. It would seem to me that the campaigners behind this likely either live in Herne Hill or along the roads that are planned to be closed or otherwise positively affected by the plans (possibly supported by property groups hoping to develop in the area - not to scare-monger but if i lived on the Loughborough Estate i would be very concerned about the longevity of my tenancy). As for car-use, as up the junction mentions, some residents need to be able to continue using their cars unhindered, either because they are elderly or have children. Is the traffic really that bad on any single road at the moment?

 

[se5]

As an interested local living near Myatts Fields Park some of the major issues as I see them are

There is a problem with traffic on Loughborough Road as it meets Brixton Road - at most times of the day traffic is queuing to go through as the parked cars either side mean that only one lane of traffic can get through. I have seen several angry incidents and standoffs at this point. Most of the traffic is seeking a shortcut to avoid Brixton town centre.

There is a problem with traffic on Calais Street near Myatts Fields Park. Again the narrow road and parked cars mean that at most times of the day the traffic is queuing to go through again with angry incidents. Most of this traffic is seeking to avoid Camberwell town centre by doing a run down Denmark Road, Calais Street, Lothian Road and then Patmos Road. The Patmos Road/Langton Road/Loithian Road one way system is not good for pedestrians and cyclists.

There is a problem with speeding traffic on Knatchbull Road - the straight road means that if it is clear traffic speeds from the Calais St end down. There is also conflict of traffic as, whilst its wider than Calais, it is hard for two cars to pass when there is parked cars on either side. This results in the P5 bus being slowed down (although I understand that Tfl want to reroute the P5 along Lothian Road)

There are several schools in the area and many families wanting to use Myatts Fields Park - the current traffic and road layout makes crossing hard and dangerous. It should be easy for families to walk to the park or to school without having to negotiate cars passing through residential streets.

There is already a 20mph limit on Loughborough Road - on the occasions when I drive on that road at 20mph I get overtaken by speeding cars. I know enforcement will still be a problem under the new scheme but I'd like to think that local residents have more of a stake in the area and so will be more likely to comply with speed limits.

There is a desperate need for a controlled parking zone - roads such as Loughborough Road, Lilford Road, Paulet Road, Knatchbull Road, Calais Street, Cormont Road, Patmos Road, Lothian Road amongst others are filled with cars during the week but less than half full at weekends and on public holidays. Census figures show that 64% of residents in Vassall ward and 69% of residents in Coldharbour ward do not own cars and yet our lives are blighted by the cars parked on the streets. From my observations the cars come from workers at Camberwell bus garage, workers at the hospital and commuters driving in and catching the tube from Oval station amongst others. This is about as far into London you can go travelling from Kent/South East London and get a free parking space. Southwark has controlled parking all the way to border on Denmark Road and on Flodden Road. It is not the job of Lambeth to provide a free parking space to these people.

If a CPZ were introduced in the area the number of cars would be significantly reduced - maybe 50% fewer cars. As a result the roads would become a race track as a result of the lower levels of cars. Traffic calming and traffic restricting measures need to be implemented first to stop the roads becoming more dangeorus if a CPZ is introduced.

When the CPZ 'Camberwell M' was last consulted on in 2009 there was a small majority in favour of not introducing the CPZ - this was after lots of scaremongering from those who would lose their parking spaces and if I recall there was evidence of local TMOs submitting consultation responses in the name of their residents. The main problem was that the 64% of the local population who dont own cars saw no reason to respond - they were not sold a vision of how much more pleasant the area could be withour cars.

Lambeth's policy is to encourage sustainable transport - walking and cycling - and discourage rat running and through traffic. The only way effectively this can be done is by road closures so that the rat running traffic is forced out. My limited reading of the research evidence shows that if routes become too difficult regular drivers soon find another route/ choose other forms of transport.

I think if anything the current proposals will make it easier for local residents to drive around the area as the through traffic will be removed - however they may have to take a slightly longer route as the cut throughs will not be available.

 

[brixtonblade]

If a CPZ will reduce traffic lots why not do that and add more traffic calming rather than close the through roads?

 

[Jute]

There is a problem with traffic on Loughborough Road as it meets Brixton Road

Couldn't agree more, horrible road for traffic issues and road rage....but this isn't planned to close is it? Won't the traffic (and so the issues) on this road increase if other through-routes are shut?

 

[ricbake]

Hope you're about to make your way to Longfield Hall, Knatchbull Road for the consultation meeting 18:30 this evening.
see you there

 

[cuppa tee]

Sounds about right... The Council always jump up and take notice of "small but organised and motivated group of residents"

Sorry to come back to this but your sarcastic tone does not hide the fact that they will do if the group and the council want the same outcome, there are plenty of incidences where this happens some have even been discussed on this forum . Regarding what the councillor said to me [see my last post] i should also say also a letter went out from a vassal councillor after the last consultation "failed" saying that some streets had not agreed with the outcome and were pushing for their own mini CPZ even though the majority of the ward were against the proposals [54% as mentioned elsewhere], this despite the fact that such a solution would obviously have knock on effects on other parts of the ward, this imo shows contempt for local democracy and illustrates the corrosive effects on the wider community of the piecemeal implementation of cpz's in that once a problem is "solved" in one area it is merely displaced to somewhere else, which I think would account for a lot of the parking stress in Vassal atm, which brings me to this........

Small relative to what, there are nearly 300 signatures attached to the current campaign? - certainly organised and motivated groups of residents have lobbied and are lobbying to have the issue revisited
http://myattsfieldparking.wordpress.com/abandoned-vehicles

I looked the petition after seeing the professional looking vinyl banners on the railings around the park and on reading the reasons for signing it becomes apparent that many of the signatories are not motivated by much more than a desire to use their cars more freely, I guess it is a question of one's priorities and whether one feels ones need to pop to Sainsburys is greater than the need of an NHS worker or a bus driver to get to work at an early or late hour having little choice where to leave their transport because of parking controls closer to their work, who knows some of these might even have had to move out of the area because of rising housing costs, making a car the best option. I have no doubt that a CPZ will come to the area sooner rather than later because the council have said there will be a consultation once Oval Quarter is up and running and I think the new wave of incoming Audi/BMW drivers will jump at the opportunity having plenty of disposable thus swinging the vote to a yes with predictable rises in property values to follow.....

 

[upthejunction]

Just been to the first half off the "consultation" meeting which mainly consisted of continuous failure to answer proper and relevant questions and a total belief in the rightness of their plan. Main points gleaned:
1. There have been NO traffic studies, this supposedly is because of roadworks on Loughborough Road. They are planning to do one when the roadworks finish (7 days at various traffic points) though they could not say whether this would be before the consultation period finished! They also did not know when the experiment was due to be started!!! When asked whether there was any basis for saying there was a through traffic problem on Loughborough Road at all they said they had cycled around and seen it!
2. I asked the main man (in the break) about what they thought the traffic problems were and he said a ratrun on Loughborough Road as confirmed by cycling around and asking people. I said no-one i knew in the area said that - the only traffic problem was not volume, but caused by parking on both sides at the Angell town end of LR casuing only one way traffic to be possible and the impossibly short traffic light timing at the LR/Brixton Road end. I said the volume was not the problem it was that it was not being able to get through - the exact oppostie of what LB Lambeth said. He said he would think about it but the lights were controlled by TfL (who are giving the grant for the proposal!). His answer was that I was looking at it all wrong and from the point of view of someone who wanted to use my car (true, but not exclusive) and was missing ythe point as the aim was to reduce car usage overall in the area.
3. The LB Lambeth person agreed with me when I said that car ownership in the Loughborough area was between 25-50% what it was in other areas - he said it was 30%. Having reached a point of agreement I proposed to him that what they therefore should be considering if they wished to keep and enhance our environmental credentials was excluding others from high car ownership areas from driving on our roads - in other words blocking their roads and access to our area - in other words Hinton and Herne Hill Road. He seemed bemused by this logic (thanks to my wife for this suggestions).
4. LB Lambeth (and some of the Vassall people) seemed to support the plan on the basis of a nicer public space at Loughborough Junction without considering the possibility that this could be achieved in other ways (by for example putting better facilites, street lighting, rate rebates for retail businesses, etc in the area) and making a square area on the corner of wick Gdsn, possibly extended to the Hero - He said the voting on the LB Lambeth masterplan supported the current plan) with no others put). I asked how many people - he didn't have the figures but said they could be made avaialble. I told him I knew of no-one on Loughborough Road or on our side who supported the road-blocking proposal.
5. Vassall Ward people (mainly in private houses it seemed) want parking restrictions rather than roadblocks (were two shows of hands one was in favour of parkign restrictions, the other against road closures). The LB Lambeth person confirmed they had not considered what the effect of parking restrictions may be on any potential traffic problem.
6. Loughborough people were bemused with ghetto-isation and lack of need
7. One of the Vassall people said she could organise a traffic study (as she worked in the field) if LB lambeth thought it was too expensive to do a destination/through traffic study (as they had said!). Unfortunately I forgot to get her details. If anyone knows it may be an idea to liaise on the terms of such a study - she said she would just canvas drivers at Loughborough Jnction entering & exiting LR at rush hour. Obviously this would hugely help in establishing if the problem is just a parking one or a through traffic one but other traffic points may be useful as well if there is the person power with clipboards.

Loughborough Estate are having a meeting to discuss all of this on 21 October 2014 at the Loughborough Community Centre at 7pm. It would seem (by their reaction) that the LB Lambeth people are a bit taken aback at the less than joyous welcome to their unresearched plan and they kept making noises about being amenable to local concerns without comitting themselves to whether this may affect the experimental phase. It seems to me if people canvassed locals by individual household with written confirmation if a yea or nay then LB Lambeth may have a problem if enough were nay. There are about 2000 households in this category - a leaflet drop (wwith a very simple leaflet with two boxes and a brief explanation of the plan (or just a map with the proposed closures) coudl do it for about £200 or some other way coudl be found. Or they may be doing it themselves already - I heard discussion of a petition...

I've just thought of something - if there are no traffic lights, etc at LJ won't the coldharbour lane traffic just speed through making it even more of a transitory wasteland than what the proposal aims to end according to LB Lambeth? Also is the £800,000 that I understand LJAG have won from TfL to improve the LJ area tied to this plan or is it for general improvements?

 

[CH1]

Just been to the first half off the "consultation" meeting which mainly consisted of continuous failure to answer proper and relevant questions and a total belief in the rightness of their plan. Main points gleaned:
1. There have been NO traffic studies, this supposedly is because of roadworks on Loughborough Road. They are planning to do one when the roadworks finish (7 days at various traffic points) though they could not say whether this would be before the consultation period finished! They also did not know when the experiment was due to be started!!! When asked whether there was any basis for saying there was a through traffic problem on Loughborough Road at all they said they had cycled around and seen it!
2. I asked the main man (in the break) about what they thought the traffic problems were and he said a ratrun on Loughborough Road as confirmed by cycling around and asking people. I said no-one i knew in the area said that - the only traffic problem was not volume, but caused by parking on both sides at the Angell town end of LR casuing only one way traffic to be possible and the impossibly short traffic light timing at the LR/Brixton Road end. I said the volume was not the problem it was that it was not being able to get through - the exact oppostie of what LB Lambeth said. He said he would think about it but the lights were controlled by TfL (who are giving the grant for the proposal!). His answer was that I was looking at it all wrong and from the point of view of someone who wanted to use my car (true, but not exclusive) and was missing ythe point as the aim was to reduce car usage overall in the area.
3. The LB Lambeth person agreed with me when I said that car ownership in the Loughborough area was between 25-50% what it was in other areas - he said it was 30%. Having reached a point of agreement I proposed to him that what they therefore should be considering if they wished to keep and enhance our environmental credentials was excluding others from high car ownership areas from driving on our roads - in other words blocking their roads and access to our area - in other words Hinton and Herne Hill Road. He seemed bemused by this logic (thanks to my wife for this suggestions).
4. LB Lambeth (and some of the Vassall people) seemed to support the plan on the basis of a nicer public space at Loughborough Junction without considering the possibility that this could be achieved in other ways (by for example putting better facilites, street lighting, rate rebates for retail businesses, etc in the area) and making a square area on the corner of wick Gdsn, possibly extended to the Hero - He said the voting on the LB Lambeth masterplan supported the current plan) with no others put). I asked how many people - he didn't have the figures but said they could be made avaialble. I told him I knew of no-one on Loughborough Road or on our side who supported the road-blocking proposal.
5. Vassall Ward people (mainly in private houses it seemed) want parking restrictions rather than roadblocks (were two shows of hands one was in favour of parkign restrictions, the other against road closures). The LB Lambeth person confirmed they had not considered what the effect of parking restrictions may be on any potential traffic problem.
6. Loughborough people were bemused with ghetto-isation and lack of need
7. One of the Vassall people said she could organise a traffic study (as she worked in the field) if LB lambeth thought it was too expensive to do a destination/through traffic study (as they had said!). Unfortunately I forgot to get her details. If anyone knows it may be an idea to liaise on the terms of such a study - she said she would just canvas drivers at Loughborough Jnction entering & exiting LR at rush hour. Obviously this would hugely help in establishing if the problem is just a parking one or a through traffic one but other traffic points may be useful as well if there is the person power with clipboards.

Loughborough Estate are having a meeting to discuss all of this on 21 October 2014 at the Loughborough Community Centre at 7pm. It would seem (by their reaction) that the LB Lambeth people are a bit taken aback at the less than joyous welcome to their unresearched plan and they kept making noises about being amenable to local concerns without comitting themselves to whether this may affect the experimental phase. It seems to me if people canvassed locals by individual household with written confirmation if a yea or nay then LB Lambeth may have a problem if enough were nay. There are about 2000 households in this category - a leaflet drop (wwith a very simple leaflet with two boxes and a brief explanation of the plan (or just a map with the proposed closures) coudl do it for about £200 or some other way coudl be found. Or they may be doing it themselves already - I heard discussion of a petition...

I've just thought of something - if there are no traffic lights, etc at LJ won't the coldharbour lane traffic just speed through making it even more of a transitory wasteland than what the proposal aims to end according to LB Lambeth? Also is the £800,000 that I understand LJAG have won from TfL to improve the LJ area tied to this plan or is it for general improvements?

You could do a leaflet drop for £10-£20 if someone has a laser printer and a guillotine (print 2 reams of A4 and cut them in half).