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)
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 email@example.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:
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;
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;
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
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.