bimble
floofy
Ok. I had never seen that before. All the official information I've read has repeated the same very restricted stated goal of 'a meaningful town centre ' etc.
Loughborough Junction public space improvements - consultation begins
- Thread starter Leo Chesterton
- Start date
prunus
Tick tock.
I think the one thing that all the 18 opposing sides in this debate can agree on is that communication from the authorities has been dire throughout.
critical1
All views expressed are definitely my own.
I have never heard of a warning in relation to a Statutory Penalty Notice, but that's all I've heard so far a lot of WARNINGS unheard of really.
Loads of cars going through day and night, the real Cash Cow methinks..
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
On the grounds of balance:
The Portuguese Inquisition wants to burn me as a sacrifice to the Gods. What do they think I am, a Jew?
CANDIDE - by Voltaire
[as told by @MoYoLawn - Twitterature, Penguin Books, 2009]
bimble
floofy
A thing with 18 sides is almost a circle, right?
That document teuchter found is very interesting, the one that has disappeared and only exists now as a cached google shadow thing.
It's interesting because of the first paragraph, called 'background', which very clearly says that this is a measure designed to encourage cycling by making local journeys more difficult by car etc.
It doesn't say anything at all about 'a meaningful town centre'.
That bit, seemingly the key intention inspiration behind the closures, has been excised totally form all subsequent publicity / information about the closures.
The doc goes on to say 'it is anticipated that the whole area bounded by Camberwell New Rd, Denmark rd , Coldharbour Lane and Brixton Road will see a reduction in motor traffic though some roads may see an increase in local access traffic'.
Which has also never been mentioned in any of the council's communications about the closures that I've ever seen.
Why? I'm really stumped as to why the council would choose to go ahead with a plan that was (it now seems) designed for one purpose but present it so differently, sticking to the dogged repetition of that line about 'a meaningful town centre' and so on.
Last edited:
I agree. Since that appears to have been the original intention (as Teuchter points out) it has an effect throughout a wider area than that consulted. I'm miffed that people to the south of LJ (including me in Se24) were never consulted about it - indeed I'm not even included in the latest 11000 leaflet drop. Such a major initiative requires proper planning and consultation and a consideration of the needs of the entire community rather than just keen cyclists (which I am myself).
A thing with 18 sides is almost a circle, right?
That document teuchter found is very interesting, the one that has disappeared and only exists now as a cached google shadow thing.
It's interesting because of the first paragraph, called 'background', which very clearly says that this is a measure designed to encourage cycling by making local journeys more difficult by car etc.
It doesn't say anything at all about 'a meaningful town centre'.
That bit, seemingly the key intention inspiration behind the closures, has been excised totally form all subsequent publicity / information about the closures.
The doc goes on to say 'it is anticipated that the whole area bounded by Camberwell New Rd, Denmark rd , Coldharbour Lane and Brixton Road will see a reduction in motor traffic though some roads may see an increase in local access traffic'.
Which has also never been mentioned in any of the council's communications about the closures that I've ever seen.
Why? I'm really stumped as to why the council would choose to go ahead with a plan that was (it now seems) designed for one purpose but present it so differently, sticking to the repetition of that line about 'a meaningful town centre' and so on.
Well, I imagine because they think it will make it easier to sell their plan to the public. After all, there are a lot of curmudgeonly fuckers like me out there who don't want to "get with the program."
People have been cooking up these plans for ages (I'm not just talking about Loughborough Junction here - that's just a small part of it). Just do a google search for "quietways". There are plans to effectively reserve loads of roads just for cycling. In order to qualify as a "quietway" a road must have < 3000 vehicles per day using it. If it has more than that, it's a candidate for being blocked off and reserved for cycling and local access only.
For example, have a look at this link:
Southwark Quietways Stakeholder Engagement
There's a map there showing a proposed quietway route, annotated with loads of comments, presumably from cyclists, asking for roads to be closed along the way.
I don't know who the "stakeholders" for this scheme are, presumably cyclists. I hadn't heard anything about this scheme until I did the search. Similarly, I didn't know anything about the LJ scheme until I saw a sign go up a week before the closures were introduced. They cook up these plans on the hush hush and they are already decided before anyone has a chance to object.
Quietways are a TFL thing. So I assume every borough has similar plans to this.
bimble
floofy
You think the council decided to present this as a local 'meaningful town centre' idea rather than as part of a city-wide concerted effort to get people out of their cars because that way they thought they might get less resistance?
Could be. For me personally it would have helped a lot to be told what it was really all about, because I can understand that bigger picture but never could get my head around the reason that we have been sold, the meaningful town centre / half-arsed pedestrianised area thing.
Could be. For me personally it would have helped a lot to be told what it was really all about, because I can understand that bigger picture but never could get my head around the reason that we have been sold, the meaningful town centre / half-arsed pedestrianised area thing.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
For me this is a coalition of two "stakeholders" who no doubt have some cross-over:
1. Those who want a new vibrant "Loughborough Village Centre" - with or without bistros in arches etc. #
2. The cyclists, who understandably want to promote safer cycling routes
The third stakeholders in the situation would be Loughborough Estate residents
the fourth I guess specifically local motorists
The way it pans out, the last two think the first two have ganged upon them with the council.
ChrisSouth
Well-Known Member
So at the end of this consultation and piloting period, three questions should be asked about these road closures: a) what would you keep (about the road closures)?; what would you lose/remove?; what would you keep but change?
I'd keep at the very least Padfield Road and Gordon Grove closures.
Anyone else?
I'd keep at the very least Padfield Road and Gordon Grove closures.
Anyone else?
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Could be. would you say the same of the Taylor Wimpey thing on show the last two days? Can't see how that could be done at all without Network Rail.
I think Network Rail are only interested in Bistros at LJ. So I doubt they actually care about the road being closed or not.
Personally I think that Network Rail wanting the road closed so they can have Bistros in their arches is a step too far (for credibility).
We are going round in circles a bit now. I think the issue of Network Rail sits better with the Masterplan rather than the current road closure.
That is all here on Lambeth's website http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/pl-loughborough-junction-masterplan-booklet-2015-2.pdf
and here http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/LJ masterplan Stage1 Report.pdf,
http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/LJ masterplan CRG TOR.pdf,
http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/LJ masterplan CRG2 Options.pdf
http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/LJ masterplan CRG2 DigitalFeedbackForm.pdf
bimble
floofy
Very curious: Why do you single out Gordon Grove as a keeper?
That's the closure just outside my window and personally I've noticed no positives from it as yet (just lots of large vehicles, many of them related to the scrapyard business, forced to do tricky turns).
bimble
floofy
I'm not suggesting that NR are the secret puppet masters cackling behind the screen but I do think that if anyone has a significant vested interest in the 'meaningful town centre' - the publicised goal of all this - then it's them. Because they are intending to refurbish & triple the rents in all the arches, starting with Rathgar Road, in 2016. And bistros are much less likely to work if situated on a busy road, no?
ChrisSouth
Well-Known Member
These are key pinch points due to narrowness of bridges or roads not designed for speeding traffic, or large trucks. I'm supposing that there's no positives because these large scrap lorries can't get there from any other way.
bimble
floofy
The scrap trucks (often very big long things, with iron girders on or several smashed up cars) can now only get to the scrap yard via Minet road and can only legally depart that way too.. I just haven't noticed things being quieter or safer right here is all, and was not aware of a problem before.
However.. If one day it comes to pass that the adventure playground is repaired and re-opened, which is pretty much directly opposite the park (/ dog poo repository), then maybe it could make sense, Gordon Grove having a pedestrian area.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
And the arch currently used as a redundant road could become a double facing bistro to serve the park, the parents of children in the newly refurbished kids play centre and residents left parched by the closure of the Wickwood Tavern [very parched].
The bridge on Gordon Grove is low, so the larger lorries can only reach the scrapyard via Minet Rd, so you have to leave it open both ways from Minet Rd to Wickwood St.
You could make it one way from Eastlake to Wickwood - that would stop the standoffs at the bridge and leave an escape route for residents of the Flaxman Rd area in case CHL is blocked. Those residents can get back via Lilford and Flaxman.
You could make it one way from Eastlake to Wickwood - that would stop the standoffs at the bridge and leave an escape route for residents of the Flaxman Rd area in case CHL is blocked. Those residents can get back via Lilford and Flaxman.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
According to Google maps there's a scrap dealer in Wickwood Street called "Bon Automotive".
I'm impressed. S/he could almost transition to a bistro with no rebranding.
I'm surprised adventure playgrounds are still allowed these days. Health and Safety ...
bimble
floofy
Yeah, that's a big part of why it's closed I think, nowadays it would have to be staffed at all times whilst open apparently.
critical1
All views expressed are definitely my own.
Thank you for the screen grab teuchter, it is obviously an artform....
So lets see, this a screen grab of a pdf document from google cache, which is not visible on the Lambeth site, and cannot be downloaded from any other source as an original pdf!
May I ask what date was the document published? Does anyone have an original digital copy of the pdf?
So many questions....
And the floor would have to be covered with that rubber stuff in case they fell off the climbing frame / tyre hanging from a tree.
bimble
floofy
Y
yep. It might be cheaper just to wrap all the children in giant wads of bouncy rubber before letting them in..
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
I am anxiously awaiting the demographic effect of the new development at Barrington Road. Looks to have a fairly high proportion of "affordable" and is a Metropolitan/Boris co-production.
Those new residents might be more keen on Jimmy's Plaice.
New developments need to be vetted for "bistro friendliness" along with "secure by design" gatedness.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Quite the opposite. I am saying that it can be used by gentry to park their kids whilst they have a nice steak, or whatever people do in bistros.
Who's to lose. They could employ some unemployed people as volunteers to ensure health and safety at the adventure playground.
And some administrators to run police checks on them.
It is trickle down economics red in tooth and claw.
Similar threads
