Idea: Part-Pedestrianise Perry Vale

Continuing the discussion from Pedestrian Crossing - South side of Forest Hill

Here’s an idea:

• Pedestrianise the part of Perry Vale indicated in red (block the intersection with the South Circular)

• Encourage North-South traffic onto the road marked in blue:

IMG_3577591×842 80.6 KB

Sunderland road is wide and straight enough to take the traffic that currently flows through the Perry Vale loop:

IMG_35741334×750 382 KB

And Perry Vale, which currently looks like this:

IMG_35751334×750 292 KB

…could look like this:

IMG_35761516×650 324 KB

Creating an attractive pedestrian precinct would be great for businesses on the “wrong side of the tracks” and the perfect home for a brand new Forest Hill Market.

I was thinking the same but did not dare to say it out loud - too bold. And I think it is a great idea. There could be local market events, coffee shops, nice little traffic free area.

The largest businesses in that red circle is a cab office, mechanics, MOT garage and mail order shop. I’d say vehicle access is pretty essential for them.

I would certainly be in favour of pedestrianising the bit from Waters to the A205 and making the rest up to the car park a one way.

That would also allow servicing the supermarket and the other businesses but providing a safer, cleaner and more pleasant environment.

It is an interesting idea, although one that might not have much support from residents of Sunderland Road. There is one big problem with Sunderland Road and that is the junction with the South Circular - turning right out of Sunderland Road and turning right into Sunderland Road from the eastbound carriage way of Waldram Park Road.

The right turn out isn’t a huge issue, as little traffic joins the South Circular heading east at this point (more likely to head down Woolstone Road or Kemble Road). But the right turn into Sunderland Road would be an issue especially since it is a bus route. Inevitably it would require traffic lights to facilitate the tricky turn and the filter lane would need to be extended.

The other end of Sunderland Road would also need consideration if there were to be an increase in vehicles turning right into Sunderland Road immediately after a mini-roundabout. It would be too easy for the mini-roundabout to become mini-gridlock.

Both of these problems have solutions, the question is whether residents of Sunderland Road should be expected to accept their road being upgraded to the B227.

It is also worth considering just how much positive impact this scheme would make to the town centre. Is this side of the railway the right place for a market. My opinion is that the station car park (or a new plaza) is the best place for a market - which is part of the suggestion the Forest Hill Society is currently consulting about.

However, I don’t see a regular market as particularly viable, and would be concerned about the impact on local businesses. I could go into a lot of detail about the market for markets (and my wife and I have run one or two between us), but this thread is really about the roads.

One of the ideas I’ve been considering (a bit less radical than Chris) is to:
a) Leave access to Perry Vale as it is, but add a pedestrian crossing
b) Make the Perry Vale section of the Triangle one-way (a scheme we have suggested before)
c) Make Sunderland Road and Westbourne Drive one way for vehicle traffic (probably southbound on Sunderland and northbound on Westbourne)
d) Add dedicated cycle lanes to both Sunderland Road and Westbourne Drive to provide better cycle routes and restrict traffic flow on these residential roads.

As with other road schemes, I don’t think there is a single scheme that solves all the problems. But I do think is that it is worth creating and discussing ideas to see what might work. And there is money from the Mayor of London for such schemes - which is why the Forest Hill Society and Sydenham Society are slowly working to develop some ‘Liveable Streets’ initiatives in our areas, thinking about how to make local roads more bike and pedestrian friendly. Which is why Brendan raised the issue here a couple of weeks ago. And we would be keen to hear from more people who have ideas about how their roads and their non-car travel could be improved in the area.

WThe problem with using Sunderland Road is the nasty right hand turn into Sunderland on the bend in the South Circular. Most people will prefer to turn right on one of the two preceding side roads. There is room for one car to wait to turn into Church Rise, but any more would hold up larger vehicles behind. Even if people do take Sunderland, if they need to turn left again, they will again be very tempted to use the side roads rather than turn left at the bottom, which is very close to the mini roundabout at the bottom of Mayow Road. The manoeuvre is fine now, but I can imagine it being more difficult with a significant extra flow of traffic.

The current right-hand turn into Waldram Crescent doesn’t hold up traffic behind, and benefits from gaps afforded by people using the crossing lights at the Co-Op.

ETA - I see I’ve repeated some of Michael’s comments. I’ll leave mine here as a support to his observations. I live on Mayow Road and use these routes almost daily.

I don’t drive or have a car BUT I do live on Sunderland Road so, for obvious reasons, would not be supportive of this proposal.

Notwithstanding the increased traffic, as others have pointed out, the exit turning right onto the South Circular would be horrific. It’s bad enough now. Also, as a pedestrian trying to cross the South Circular at the ped crossing there can be quite dangerous as it’s difficult to see cars coming around the corner. There would have to be significant changes such as traffic lights and pedestrian crossings etc. There is a nursery right at that junction as well.

In that case we could choose to block the roads here, so those businesses keep their direct access to the South Circular:

IMG_3578750×761 94.9 KB

Thanks for the detailed feedback @Michael and others.

Could a small roundabout help with that issue?

IMG_3579750×815 62.2 KB

I would love a proper once-a-week street market in Forest Hill. For me the Farmer’s market at the Horniman doesn’t cut the cheese (even with a cheese stall).

But like others have described so eloquently, I can’t see how this particular proposal would work. As noted by @Michael and @RachaelDunlop Sunderland Road’s junction with the South Circular and Perryvale are particularly troublesome. One could argue for lights at either end, but traffic on the South Circular through that bend is already often at a standstill. Would this further exaggerate the problem?

There is also a primary school on Sunderland Road, on the crest of the hill thus poor sight lines coming in either direction. Should Sunderland be incorporated into a b-road with additional traffic calming measures including the enforcement of a 20mph (or slower) may be required for this school zone.

Above all Sunderland Road is and always has been a residential road popular with families. Many residents rely on on-street parking which could be lost or limited with b-road status. And surely residents of Sunderland Road should reasonably expect to keep their lovely often tree-lined avenue which many have lived in for several years.

This aside, I still love the idea of a market and while I was reading this last night I too wondered whether the Forest Hill parking lot would be the best place for this. Though on second thought why couldn’t this happen on Perry Vale once a week, perhaps on a Sunday when traffic is at its lowest? The North Cross Road market in East Dulwich was originally just a Saturday event. With the street closed to traffic only one day a week, the market has appeared to invigorate local businesses creating a small but neat second shopping district.

Given the need for vehicular access to the businesses noted by @anon86223367 the market could be limited to one side of Perry Vale and a one-way system encourage to include Church Vale and Westbourne Drive.

There are obviously lots of ifs and buts to consider and the best practice would be to consult everyone concerned with some solution feedback. One thing is clear that something has to be done to make the “wrong side of the rail” safe for people to cross the road before somebody gets hurt or killed (God forbid). Sunderland road can be one way road with 20mph limit, with traffic lights on the junction with South Circular sharing the traffic with Perry Vale that can be a one way road too with traffic light and pedestrian crossing. It can be all discussed and most importantly to listen to all people concerned. One condition, people concerned have to offer a solution. I dont think saying just NO is fair for all of us living and using this section of Forest Hill.

I hear you on both points, and I understand your objection. But do bear in mind there is also a school on Perry Vale B227. Parents of kids at that school have to suffer a busy road that incorporates two very dangerous bends. So there will be winners and losers from the proposal.

IMG_3580750×680 76.4 KB

Perry Vale has become far more residential with recent developments. In fact its residential housing is now far more densely populated than Sunderland Road.

IMG_35821334×750 241 KB

If we want to reduce traffic per resident headcount, we’d route the traffic off Perry Vale and onto Sunderland Road.

I know the houses are prettier on Sunderland, but I don’t think that makes their residents more important, to be frank.

Thinking about a miniroundabout - I’m not a fan of these as for some reason people find roundabouts much harder when they can see all the cars. I use the one at the bottom of Mayow daily and almost every day we have a situation where either people just don’t bother to give way to me when I’m turning right, like a miniroundabout is sort of optional (yes, daily this happens), or a car arrives at each of the entry points, they all stop and no one know who should make the first move.

If there were a miniroundabout at the top of Sunderland Road, right turners would take precedence over traffic flowing towards FH. Would this be acceptable to TfL (I believe they are responsible for the South Circ, especially where it is Red Route. Do correct me if I’m wrong)?

I don’t think that’s the argument being made. Rather, it would be significantly changing the nature of the road, and that needs to be taken into consideration. While there is some more residential property on Perry Vale that before, those that bought there knew the type of road they were buying on. I doubt reducing traffic congestion purely based on the number of people affected is a usable metric.

As a long term resident I can tell you that trafffic flowed much better in the section by the subway before Lewisham redesigned the layout a few years ago. This has been a horrible botch job, including the legal parking that blocks passing traffic. A much simpler solution would be to get that section redesigned, but properly this time. Highly unlikely to happen, I know.

You need to consider more than just how pretty the dwellings are, or the income required to buy/rent a property.

The City Walk development has extra thick glazing on the side facing the road ans railway (I know because I demanded it was included in the planning application). Similarly when Perrystreet and St George’s were refurbished they would have taken account of the noise levels at the design stage. This has not been the case for any houses on Sunderland Road, many of which will have single glazed, timber-framed sash windows.

Another consideration would be the number of crossovers on the road. Sunderland Road has stretched with very large numbers of cross-overs, and this is not ideal for a main road.

And I believe this is a very different issue that is currently being discussed here and in previous threads noted by @anon5422159 in that linked topic. I cannot believe the solution to the pedestrian crossing is to pedestrianize a large chunk of road, and redesign traffic flow in the entire area.

There is another issue which should be addressed in tandem with the pedestrian crossing and that is complete lack of access for people with mobility issues to the underpass or from the platform 2.

St. George’s also has access from the corner of Church Vale and Westbourne Drive which can be used. Though my point wasn’t to suggest the importance of one school over the other. But to illustrate that the need for traffic control which would kibosh your earlier proposal for 30mph speed limits and the removal of traffic calming measures on Sunderland Road. But I see you’ve deleted that in later edits of your post.

What? What wonderful straw man argument are you bringing from Politicos dear boy?

I cannot believe the solution to the pedestrian crossing is to pedestrianize a large chunk of road, and redesign traffic flow in the entire area.

I think the idea pedestrianize that part of the road and close it to all traffic incorporated the solution for safe crossing, for havy traffic with coaches and lorries and dangerous driving on Perry Vale and for the idea of Forest Hill getting some village vibes. I will personally vote to pedestrianize that part completely and create a “little village centre” look.

Unfortunately, in life, there will never be a solution to satisfy all, we have to compromise in something. And i think Sunderland road and Westbourne drive have to share the burden of Perry vale traffic allowing for the opportunty to create a nice town area for the people of Forest Hill.

What is beginning to be proposed here is a huge project that needs multi-agency implementation. It feels to me like a hammer to crack a nut. Are we losing sight of where this topic originated - reducing the impact of traffic on Perry Vale near the station AND getting a crossing put in.

The issue of a pedestrian crossing is one that has been debated numerous times over the years on this and other local forums. If memory serves, someone asked Lewisham quite recently to reconsider it and they refused, as traffic engineers deemed it inappropriate not so long ago (can anyone remember this conversation from previous threads, here or elsewhere, or have I imagined it?). Given that and the fact the road was (poorly) redesigned quite recently, I can’t see grand schemes that would involve redesigning it again and changing traffic priorities on the South Circular at Sunderland Road making much headway.

Fun to spitball, but perhaps it would be better to focus on what we can realistically achieve in the short to medium term.

I have always belived that all concerned people should be asked and listened to. Everyones opinion is important - and those who does not want extra traffic on their roads, and those who wants some village vibes like myself. When ALL ifs and buts collected in one pot and analysed, so an optimal solution can be found. The question is HOW TO START this process.

I completely get the attraction of a pedestrian shopping area on your door step. And yes, I agree that pedestrianizing that part of Perry Vale would solve the road crossing issue. But there are many other solutions available many of which have been offered and discussed on those other threads. If the top priority is to solve this one problem then it is worthwhile to discuss this in context of other solutions.

Living as I do on this side of the tracks, I am attracted somewhat by this idea. But I don’t think this is worthy of discussion in isolation. It needs to be considered in terms of the needs of all of Forest Hill. For me a major question would be the affect on businesses on Dartmouth/London Roads by creating a competitive commercial centre. If pedestrianization of some of our streets is the solution should we not also consider the areas where the majority of Forest Hill shops exist. Other topics show that business is difficult enough already with the losses of Montage and most recently the Hill and at some point the Capitol.

There are already some very bold proposals coming from the Forest Hill Society for a radical redesign of Forest Hill incorporating pedestrian zones along with improvements to the Perry Vale entrance of the station and mobility access in the underpass. I’m not sure if this includes a safe road crossing but I’d be very surprised if it didn’t. Maybe @michael could comment. But I’d encourage you to review these in context of this specific proposal here.

Scroll down to June 27 news release.

On this I don’t agree. Its a slippery slope which allows London’s growing traffic problems to take priority over residential streets. For instance I once read a proposal to relieve the South Cirular on Waldram Park Road by creating a one way system incorporating Stansted Road. Yes, it would probably work but at what cost? Perhaps our priority should be to reduce the number of road journeys rather than respond to them. Residential streets should be maintained to ensure safe and healthy environments for those residents. Our priority should be on maintaining our streetscape rather than radically change it in favour of road access. As @Michael pointed out, new builds on Perry Vale have been designed and built for their position on a b road. Properties and communities around Sunderland and Westbourne (and Church Rise) have not.

I’d suggest joining the Forest Hill Society where this process has begun.

One thing I’d add - anyone who joins this debate should make full disclosure if they live in Sunderland Road or Perry Vale. It’s important that we don’t try to present biased positions as neutral positions. Props to @Bolgerp for being honest and upfront.

For my disclosure, I live in Honor Oak and make regular visits on foot to Forest Hill via Perry Rise and the underpass.

I live in Standlake Point on Windrush lane. I dont drive and do a lot of walking and using public transport. I use Perry vale to get to Co-oP to pay bills and get buses to go to Lewisham shopping centre. I use underpass to get to Sainsbury’s and post office. And obviously the Perry vale in opposite direction to Sainsbury’s in Bell Green and bus stop for 356.

Sorry. I thought I had though I’ve made no secret of this on other topics some linked through this one. I live on Sunderland Road.

But while this is the case my input in here isn’t quite so clouded by that fact but with a real interest to find solutions. I don’t think this is the right solution and I’d like to think I’d have responded the same if I lived elsewhere. My last post argued very much against any residential road being used to offset traffic problems.

Appreciate the disclosure.

I agree with prioritising the needs of residents when routing (or re-routing) traffic. I believe Perry Vale has more residents per mile than Sunderland Road. Happy to be proven wrong.

And yes, some of the new-builds have double glazing. But that’s just one factor, with the traffic/resident ratio being a significant factor.

I regularly drive to Bromley and use Perry Vale. I often use Westbourne Drive to avoid northbound traffic on Perry Vale caused by a narrow street with inappropriate parking.

I used to live on the other side of the footpath connecting Sunderland Road and Trilby Road, so I have been a regular pedestrian in this area of Forest Hill.

These days I tend to avoid Sunderland Road when driving due to the height of the humps, but I also remember before the humps were there (we’re probably talking at least 25 years ago) it was a very busy road and residents suffered from too much traffic and inappropriate speeds on a residential road. At that time it wasn’t such a pretty or desirable place to live due to rat-running and excessive speed.

The second to fourth edits of the original post included removing the humps on Sunderland Road. Traffic would then go considerably faster than 30mph. So to make this scheme work we need two new sets of traffic lights, replacement speed humps with pimples and tables, add a zebra crossing by the school.

Alternatively we could demolish the taxi firm and widen the junction between Perry Vale and Waldram Place, while pedestrianising (or making one way) just the last part of Perry Vale between Waldram Place and Waldram Park Road. And add a zebra crossing to the newly aligned road.

The point is moot. Unless you are suggesting main traffic routes should be solely determined by some brand new traffic/resident ratio. Urban planning focuses on residential density and never on such a linear scale. If this were a measurement I think the onus would be on you to prove the case. There is a lot of that part of Perry Vale which is either industrial, commercial or institutional in its use (marked below in yellow). Anyways, wasn’t the proposal to simply enable this pedestrian zone? When did this become about who has more residents?

I did have visions of the stretch of Sunderland Road from the top of the hill to the South Circular becoming some drag strip with boy racers in their BMWs coming over the hump like the Dukes of Hazzard before sliding to a stop at the South Circular… children and prams and dogs laid to waste in its waste.

I jest but without strict speed controls and traffic calming measures I’d have no doubt Sunderland Road would become a very unsafe environment, as would Church Rise or Westbourne Drive is they were part of the scheme.

Alternatively we could demolish the taxi firm

At this point i dont want to see faces of the guys who own this minicab office.)))) i bet their eyes will pop out when they read this line. But realistically, it is too radical if it was not a joke. I am sure the solution can be found if opinion of all gets into the hands of professional street planning engineers, i am pretty sure there is some science in this road business.

It wasn’t a joke and I would prefer to see an even more significant development on this site including new shops (including minicab offices) and residential (with appropriate noise-proofing)

image852×564 202 KB

There is a very good case for getting the cab company to relocate as their drivers are often responsible for blocking traffic by stopping outside the offices just past the station. They also publicly urinate in Perry Vale car park where they tend to hang out waiting for call outs. It’s pretty unpleasant.

Sorry, for those of us who aren’t members of the FHS can you clarify what process has begun? Is it speciifcally a process to look at the problems on Perry Vale (i.e. lack of crossing outside station entrance, legal parking causing congestion, dangerous driving etc.) or is it a more nebulous Forest Hill regeneration project. If the latter, it does seem like Perry Vale around the station should be a priority issue (or indeed THE priority issue), particularly now that Dartmouth Rd is receiving a very expensive and (IMHO opinion from the plans I have seen) questionably effective facelift.

All of the above.
Short term we are working with councillors to press for action on a Perry Vale crossing, and also for consideration by officers of the one-way plan for the end of Perry Vale.

The Forest Hill regeneration project is more nebulous and is not expected to achieve much in the next five years. But we want to build up development opportunities for Forest Hill town centre that may guide good design and development of the area.

The Liveable Neighbourhood planning is more like medium term planning and we would be looking to asking the council to bid for GLA funding in October 2018.

Also in the short to medium term is the pedestrian crossing at the front of the station, which we are pressing TfL to upgrade. That is the natural next step from the Dartmouth Road improvements.

We would love to have more people involved in pushing forward some of these projects. You can get involved by contacting me by PM or emailing michael@fhsoc.com

Wow, i would love to see that part of Perry Vale from car park and to the traffic lights northbound taken down and being rebuilt with new small local businesses, coffee shops, little shops. But I thought it was too grand to even think about. But if THAT goes ahead, i will definitely put my signature to support the project.

I’d say there is space for a mini roundabout at Westbourne and Sunderland junctions with Perry Vale. This would calm the speed a bit, very much needed, and solve the rh turn issues into both. Two mini rdbts , Mayow and Sunderland, close together is not a real problem. Plenty of places that works fine.

I’m not sure where you are proposing a mini roundabout. At Sunderland Road and Perry Vale or Westbourne Drive and Perry Vale? Both?

Just saying that roundabouts look possible at either or both of those junctions depending on what the requirements are and what the rest of this scheme looked like. I’d be quite happy to have both, they would improve traffic flow for turning vehicles, prevent queuing and slow fast moving speeding vehicles that are not turning off

In all of the plans, what happens to the existing 365 bus route? (Apologies if this already been discussed and I missed it).

Perry Vale resident here, not a nay-sayer by any stretch but…why not just lower the speed limit? Speed cameras? Bumps? I appreciate there isn’t scope for a crossing, but I don’t see why it needs to be pedestrianised. The idea of pedestrianising that stretch and turning it into a market space actually fills me with dread, as a resident who formerly lived over a market space in Hackney. A pedestrianised market brings with it litter, rodents, weekend crowding, noise, early morning deliveries…Without proper stringent management (for which I wouldn’t have high hopes from Lewisham council) it would go from “nice to have” to “eyesore” pretty quickly.

Apologies to market fans. Purely speaking from bad experience and a desire for a vaguely quieter life!

“The largest businesses in that red circle is a cab office, mechanics, MOT garage and mail order shop. I’d say vehicle access is pretty essential for them.”

I’m fascinated by you’re perception of businesses in Perry Vale. Finches have been trading in the same spot since 1947 & celebrating our 70th birthday this year. We get cycle business from local people but our business depends on attracting customers from all over London, overseas & throughout the UK. We are the last ski/snowboard independent store in the London postcode & have worked very hard to keep this business going. Access to our front door by vehicles is essential both for our large deliveries of bikes & £250000 of ski equipment arriving each Autumn but also for our customers who need to collect their shopping, drop off & collect cycle repairs & ski equipment servicing.
On the other hand Perry Vale is in great need of more support from locals & would benefit from a weekly Sunday market from Piazza della Cucina to E.J. Carpets. Our new businesses (which we hoped would improve Perry Vale) are suffering & a boom Sunday trading could be the difference between survival & extinction.
On the traffic side Perry Vale would flow much better if the traffic stop sign was moved from outside Walters to the start of the triangle. The market area could then be made one way on non market days. The pedestrian crossing worked outside Perry Vale during one of our many road disruptions & though I believe traffic consultants do not recommend this option I believe it is a workable solution.

I would support:

1. A permanent pedestrian (i.e. button operated traffic lights) crossing outside the station on Perry Vale (it should be located opposite the entrance to Forest Hill Supermarket just before the subway entrance). I think the speed limit has already been reduced to 20mph and signs could be erected 50m further down the road on the corner of Waldram Place and outside Finches so I really don’t buy the arguments against. I think this is absolutely essential to Forest Hill;

2. More parking restrictions on Perry Vale directly outside Finches (the cars parking here reduce sight lines and cause congestion especially when buses and coaches are trying to get through). It should be a red route from Waldram Place to Hindsley’s Place;

3. A one way system around the Perry Vale / Waldram Pl triangle (it seems to make most sense for Waldram Pl to run in the direction from Perry Vale to S Circular, and vice versa) with appropriate changes to the S Circular to enable safe turning into and out of the one way zone (there may need to be a right turn filter light added to the lights outside the Coop); and

4. A Sunday market either weekly or fortnightly on Perry Vale during which Perry Vale is closed to traffic between the S Circular and All In One for a limited time (I would suggest between 10am-4pm, with the market itself being 11-3 with an hour either side for setting up and clearing).

None of these suggestions seems to me to be insurmountable, or particularly detrimental to anyone (there are virtually no residential dwellings in the small stretch affected), and each seems to have significant upside for pedestrians, local businesses and the community generally.

As simple as the idea is, implementation would be a pain, and the junctions either end would be horrible, and get rid of traffic flow.
The route taken would depend on eventual destination, so the bypass so to speak would be single use for those going from Mayow and then onto A205 East.
With regards to pedestrianisation of Perry Vale, why on earth? Pedestrianisation of yet another high volume road? Just like Waterloo which is next on the list…

Ideally no road would be stuffed with traffic, but at the end of the day it has been like this for decades. The calls for crossings etc are not new but have become popular recently partially due to the increased volumes of commuters to the area. Again, it’s not hard to cross the road safely for most, but laziness plays its part.

The market sounds a wonderful idea. Practical, promotional for the local businesses, and an opportunity for new businesses to flourish. As well as attracting footfall to the area for existing businesses.

I’m sure we all have an idea of how to reduce the traffic in certain areas to best suit us, but sometimes it is what it is.

6 posts were split to a new topic: Planters in Perry Vale?

post moved from 20mph topic.

Along those lines, linking back to this topic: Idea: Part-Pedestrianise Perry Vale -

Rather than trying to artificially slow our congested roads down across the borough in blunt one-size-fits-all fashion, we could take bolder steps and look at blackspots instead. I’d love to re-route traffic away from Perry Vale (bendy, pedestrian-heavy, poor visibility, by a train station and high density housing) onto Sunderland Road (long, straight, wide, with low-density housing).

Not sure about Sunderland Road. It’s a big hill with a blind brow. Obviously the speed bumps would have to go.

How about Westbourne Drive? It’s flat and straight and comes out near an existing junction.

Does anyone understand how decisions about roads are taken? Who by? Mayor? Full Council Meeting? A Committee?

I have tried to find out about previous decisions, but have been told by council officers that records are not available, and that they have no obligation to provide such.

I don’t think a huge increase in traffic down Sunderland Road is a particularly favourable idea. It has the Primary School and the Nursery on South Road nearby both with outside play areas that would suffer with the extra exhaust pollution.

Plus the junction where Sunderland meets the South Circular is extremely difficult to turn out from so there would be a constant build up of waiting cars adding to the issue.

True. There’s a school on Perry Vale as well, don’t forget.

Probably a Committee (most Council things are), in which case the minutes and papers should be online. If that doesn’t answer your question then submit an FOI request - Council officers do have an obligation to answer those (they have to be made in writing).

@anon5422159, can you clarify what proposal we are talking about here, is this actually a proper proposal or more a what if scenario? I think it may need a header change so readers do not confuse it with proper proposals made for Perry vale

Fair point. I’ve changed the title to “Idea: …”

Hi all if you was to reroute the traffics down sunderland road n remove the humps u will find more speeding as cars fly n sometimes don’t stop also so many accidents I seen because the juction

I’ve done the FOI and am none the wiser.

Ah, I assumed you’d just spoken to someone who was less than helpful! So reassuring to know that it was the official response that wasn’t helpful…

I find appalling the way council officers work. I have spoken to some of them in the past and twi out of all was helpful. Waste of public money they are.

[Edited after reading more history] Perhaps a more specific FOI request might do the trick? Can you share the specifics of what you asked? Maybe the hive mind can help to make a request more productive.

Having watched this thread develop for some time now, I am now confused about where it is actually going.

As nice an idea it is for some, I see it as nothing more than a pipe dream . Perry Vale and Coulgate St are rather different streets for starters.
Then of course there is making traffic take two extra turns, one onto Sunderland from Perry Vale (right across oncoming traffic) and then left at the bottom onto the South Circular, merging into the traffic already on the road. Much as it already does via Waldram Crescent .

There are many other places where we can play fantasy traffic flow, but at the end of the day, it is in place for a reason, and suddenly changing the dynamic could be dangerous. You only have to look at short term diversions to see what they can do.

I am sure the conversation will continue, but I for one think there is no chance of it happening, and that it would be horrific.

Yours Sincerely

Church Rise

Quite agree with this. At least where cars come off Perry Vale it is signalised. The Sunderland Rd junction is a complete lottery

And a bloody dangerous one at that, with cars making a dive into Sunderland, ignoring pedestrians.
It is a dangerous pedestrian pinch point as it is. Let alone encouraging more traffic to make the turn.

The point about the existing Sunderland Road junction doesn’t seem insurmountable. Signals can be built and Sunderland Road might not even be the chosen alternative route to PV.

Just to clarify here, this is only an unofficial discussion, there are no official plans to make any changes to the layout at this time. There won’t be a chosen road unless traffic planning were to take this on officially.

That is all perfectly clear.

Fair enough, was just making the point as it seemed otherwise. I shall hush