Threat to Brockwell Park

[Termite Man]

This scheme will lead to people in Herne Hill 'getting back' the whole
of the bottom bit of Railton Road outside the station – not to mention a safe road crossing. For the vast majority, it will be a miles more useful and pleasant space than the corner of the park as it currently stands.

I don't disagree that the scheme as a whole will bring benefits , I just think that looking at those plans the part of the part that will be taken will just be used to have pedestrianised area and unnecessary bike lane . I'm all for closing off the bootom of Railton Road and improving the flow of traffic through the area , I just think the part of the plan that is being questioned ie. the part that will take part of the park will contribute to those improvements !

 

[Ol Nick]

People are always taking parks for "improvements". Check out the joke "tram" they want to run down here. Why not take a bit of a factory or a council building or some Russian oligarch's house instead?

 

[London_Calling]

Best I can see, traffic-wise the scheme only does two things and both of those in relation to traffic travelling north on Norwood Road:

a) Creates a dedicated bus and cycle lane
b) Creates two defined general traffic lanes
- it also seems to make the lot of pedestrians a whole lot safer

It doesn’t (obviously) affect the serious problems on the other side of the bridge.

Overall, I suspect appearances might be deceptive in so much as the approach along Norwood Road will be one lane (plus the bus lane / parking lane) which becomes two lanes only four car lengths from the lights. I think that might work but it’s going to create a long single line of non-bus traffic, even if that long line does move well when the lights change.

I also don’t think Railton Road would become ‘pedestrianised’, as some have said. I’m pretty sure the numerous bus routes would still use it, even if general traffic wouldn’t.



eta: Is that tree in the middle of the 'artistic impression' there now, cos (a) I don't recall it and (b) I don't think anyone's going to plant it there?

 

[lang rabbie]

eta: Is that tree in the middle of the 'artistic impression' there now, cos (a) I don't recall it and (b) I don't think anyone's going to plant it there?

AFAIK it is the largest of the trees that are currently inside the park boundary but east of the brick wall that currently forms the edge to the tarmac/flower bed enrtrance area.

I think there are also two much younger trees that have to go to make way for the bus lane, but two others will remain inside the new railings line.

 

[Jonti]

I'm struck by the fact that widening roads to deal with traffic congestion is rather like loosening one's belt to deal with obesity.

Pointless, in other words.

 

[lang rabbie]

The statutory consultation on the planning permission required to demolish the loos etc. has now started...

The Friends of Brockwell Park are complaining about the distinct lack of publicity: Consultation sham

The 'consultation' period on the planning application opened 12 October and closes 2 November. The Council refuses to consult Park users and there has been no consultation with local residents since 2004 - which was about a different scheme. Normally there would be prominent notices and widespread consultation. But the Council has changed this practice and is doing the absolute legal minimum. The Park has twelve entrances and nineteen public noticeboards. There are nineteen large colourful notices about consultation on the changing block - but only one small notice in the whole park about the road scheme.

Herne Hill Gates

There are two noticeboards near the Herne Hill Gates. There is nothing about the planning application or the Council's proposed road on either. There are three large, colourful notices about public consultation on the future of the changing block and one, small notice about the planning application - it's smaller than the notice about a lost dog! And it's the only notice about the road in the whole Park.

The Council is complying with the absolute minimum legal requirement - they clearly don't want local people to know about the road scheme.

 

[Crispy]

I'm struck by the fact that widening roads to deal with traffic congestion is rather like loosening one's belt to deal with obesity.

Pointless, in other words.

Widening whole roads is pointless, but refining individual junctions makes sense.

 

[lang rabbie]

Widening whole roads is pointless, but refining individual junctions makes sense.

"refining individual junctions" - now there's a euphemism the traffic engineers hadn't thought of in my days campaigning against the London Road Assessment Studies eighteen years ago!

 

[Crispy]

Here's the thing. This design appears to prioritise pedestrians and buses. What more do people want? That junction is currently a mess - particularly from a pedestrian POV. This 'threat' to the park is a threat to a strip of concrete that nobody actually uses. If they were going to drive an A-road through the paddling pool, I'd be spitting venom, but this scheme improves the entrance to the park and the surrounding area, IMO.

 

[goldengraham]

Here's the thing. This design appears to prioritise pedestrians and buses. What more do people want? That junction is currently a mess - particularly from a pedestrian POV. This 'threat' to the park is a threat to a strip of concrete that nobody actually uses. If they were going to drive an A-road through the paddling pool, I'd be spitting venom, but this scheme improves the entrance to the park and the surrounding area, IMO.

I agree.

We had a leaflet from the Friends of Brockwell Park through the door the other day. The most startling thing for us was the lack of alternatives being put forward. Like most people with small kids in Herne Hill, we are desperate to get the crossings on that junction fixed. If this scheme doesn't go ahead, nothing is going to happen to improve road safety around there for years.

I did agree with the FoBP's suggestion of putting a red line on the park so people could see the physical space being given over to the junction, but I doubt it will help their argument at all for the reasons in the post above.

 

[lang rabbie]

I don't hold a very strong view against this scheme.

I just think that if a decision is made then it shouldn't be seen to set a precedent for trimming land off other open spaces, and there has to be a clear improvement to the accessibility/attractiveness of the park, and to the surrounding local townscape.

For all that has been said about the changes improving access to the park, I stongly suspect that what is actually built will not be the uncluttered area of paving shown in the artist's impression.

If the traffic engineers are still demanding staggered pedestrian crossings either side of the proposed island refuges, they will almost certainly be wanting lots of guard rails as well - to keep unruly pedestrians from walking into the road.

And all those guard rails will attract loads of flyposted ads etc...

So I will still be objecting to the detailed design.

 

[London_Calling]

Here's the thing. This design appears to prioritise pedestrians and buses. What more do people want? That junction is currently a mess - particularly from a pedestrian POV. This 'threat' to the park is a threat to a strip of concrete that nobody actually uses. If they were going to drive an A-road through the paddling pool, I'd be spitting venom, but this scheme improves the entrance to the park and the surrounding area, IMO.

That is the thing. If you use the junction and also try to cross the roads there, you know it's not only a real mess but dangerous.

The glib analogy with obesity and a tight belt just doesn't work. Ther are real problems that do need addressing.

 

[urbanspaceman]

Lambeth jeopardises Lottery bid for Brockwell Park

A serious situation has arisen that affects the Brockwell Park Heritage Lottery Fund Bid which is currently approaching its Stage 2 deadline (31st December 2007).

Dr Stewart Harding of the Parks Agency, who is retained by the HLF as the assessor of the Stage 2 application and who is a leading expert on Parks, has written to Lambeth via the Project Officer, Trevor Uprichard, to say that he has the most serious concerns about the extent of land-take from the Park proposed in the Herne Hill Junction traffic scheme. He judges that the HHJ scheme has paid little regard to the heritage importance of the Park and says that he will make this clear to the HLF. He cannot predict how they will respond but is sure than any unnecessary erosion of the Park will affect their decision on Stage 2.

This is a potential threat to the success of the bid for £4.5m to renew the infrastructure of the Park. So far Lambeth has responded by offering to talk to him set the issue into context, an offer which he did not wish to take up, but the action that Lambeth takes to address these concerns in the weeks before the submission of the stage 2 documents may be critical to whether the Bid is accepted by the HLF or not.

 

[Jonti]

That is the thing. If you use the junction and also try to cross the roads there, you know it's not only a real mess but dangerous.

The glib analogy with obesity and a tight belt just doesn't work. Ther are real problems that do need addressing.

Yes there are.

But that seems like some kind of dishonest spin to me, to pretend that the real problems with that junction *demand* that parkland be taken away.

There are problems that can be addressed without taking parkland for road. Why hasn't that been done?

 

[Obelisk]

Dear all,

I live a chicken carton's throw from the junction, haven't owned a car for 20 years and 'use' the park most weekends. I strongly support the plans to make the junction less of a fume-filled, ugly mess which hasn't been properly thought out since the 70s - it's currently has to be one of the most degraded and depressing park entrances in London. The project is not, repeat not a traffic scheme. Please take a look at some FAQs below. The park entrance is just a part of the redesign, other important improvements include the semi pedestrianisation of Railton Rd and improved safety for cyclists.

PLEASE SUBMIT AN EMAIL OF SUPPORT!

[email protected]-chair of the planning committee

http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/publicaccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_searchform.aspx

This site has information on the application enter the reference number 07/03341/RG3

LAST DATE FOR COMMENT TO PLANNING OFFICER IS 2ND NOVEMBER.

Also see www.hernehillforum.blogspot.com for more news or email [email protected] for a word document with detailed FAQs.

Obelisk







Herne Hill Junction Project: The FAQs October 2007

What are the Project’s main features?

* Pedestrian priority for the southern end of Railtonand closing it to through traffic.
• An open space in the centre of the Junction linking Herne Hill and the Park, providing safer access to the Park and reducing the dominance of traffic in the junction.
• Improvements to Brockwell Passage to make it safer, providing direct access to Dulwich Rd.
• Removal of double decker buses from the narrow residential side streets.
• Simplifying the junction to reduce excess vehiclemovements and providing more public space.
•Light-controlled crossings of all roads and an additional pedestrian crossing in Milkwood Road.
• Forward cycle stop-lines throughout and safer crossing points for cyclists.
• Improvements to road junctions giving more pavement space and direct crossings.
• A narrow slip road to improve traffic flow between Norwood Road and Dulwich Road.
• Additional bus lanes and a northbound bus stop in Norwood Road.
• Additional parking bays and more short-term parking for local shoppers.
• High quality landscape throughout providing visual linkage between the streets and the park.

What are the main benefits?

• It will bring a renewed economic and social vitalityto Herne Hill.
• Significantly improved park entrance, with pleasanter and safer access to Brockwell Park.
• Increased space and safety for pedestrians and cyclists in the junction and surrounding areas.
• Environmental improvements which will make the area and park entrance more attractive.
• Improved trading environment and encouragement for economic regeneration.
• More bus lanes, fewer bus delays and more rational interchanges, reducing journey times.
• Rerouting of double-decker buses away from narrow residential streets,
• Less pollution, smoother traffic flows and fewer hold-ups.
• Retention of the mature maple tree and more tree-planting in the junction and approach roads.
• Improved disabled access to the station.

 

[teuchter]

I've submitted a comment supporting the proposals on the planning website.

 

[twistedAM]

I've submitted a comment supporting the proposals on the planning website.

me too

 

[Gixxer1000]

Yes there are.

But that seems like some kind of dishonest spin to me, to pretend that the real problems with that junction *demand* that parkland be taken away.

There are problems that can be addressed without taking parkland for road. Why hasn't that been done?

^ What he said.

 

[kyser_soze]

I've submitted a comment supporting the proposals on the planning website.

Same here...I went into the park a couple of days ago and guesstimated where things would go...looks like about 100ms of grass affected and that's about it, the rest goes over existing concrete...