Sydenham Road Pamphlets

[Greg Whitehead]

Whilst in the sunbed in UpToScratch late one afternoon this week a chap came in asking for the manager. He stated he was asking all managers of the shops locally to sign a petition against the improvements to Sydenham Road.

Brandishing the pamphlet that came through the door regarding the plans for Sydenham gateway etc he stated that "they've sneakily buried the fact that they are going to narrow Sydenham Road, here look see, just here". He almost burst a blood-vessel when he started on the speed-humps!

As a pedestrian who chooses not to own a car and travels everywhere by public transport I don't give two hoots about cars. Frankly the more cars we can convince to avoid Sydenham Road and stop using it as a cut-through from Catford-Forest Hill for the south circular the better. I'm all for widening the pavements so that Sydenham Road can be a more pleasant environment for foot-traffic and be less car dominated.

Who does this chap represent? He talked about 'we' a great deal but unless he hadn't been going long trying to get signatures he wasn't getting much joy (there weren't many names on his sheet). He was short, bald and with spectacles. I'm assuming he wasn't from SydSoc. I wonder if they'll be going door-to-door next.

[ALIB]

I will take on all comers. Unfortunately there is no guarantee i will be able to come to the door if/when these chaps call.
Narrowing of Sydenham Road will have no significant effect on traffic flow. This is because (as far as i am aware) Sydenham Road is not a dual carriageway. A vast amount of traffic modelling has been completed by the consultants on this project to justify their claims that a more pedestrian-friendly street, will have no significant effect on traffic flow. In fact, in most circumstances it will even improve traffic flow.

Indeed, I would think that Sydenham traders in the high street would welcome a more pedestrian friendly environment? wouldn't they?

Ali B

[simon]

I saw a load of their leaflets in Ladbrokes on Saturday and wondered who was behind them. They had a website but I failed to make a note of it.
Anyway, while I agree the narrowing Sydenham Road wil have a minimal effect of tafic flows (although the Newlands Park junction and the left turn into Mayo Roadb both benefit from two lanes), it will surely have an effect on parking, which would annoy traders I think.

[scott.l.hamilton]

For those who want to see what was put forward for consultation back in May: http://www.sydenham.org.uk/Sydenham_consult_leaflet.pdf

[admin]

I assume it must be Tom Sutcliffe and Tim Duce of BALGRA (Beaulieu Avenue & Longton Grove Residents Association). They have campaigned this issue vigorously both within BALGRA and in the Transport Group at the Sydenham Assembly.

Google seems unwilling to find their website. So if anybody wants to grab a leaflet and share it with us ...

Admin

PS This is a related petition: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/SaveSydenham/#detail.

[leenewham]

Seems as if the petition has been setup by a "Gwyn Maysey" who after a quick good search seems to set up a lot of petitions to stop things from happening.

The petition is a waste as the current plans wont happen for two years at least due to the ongoing gas works, by which time no doubt the council will go though even more consultation and totally change the plans anyway.

Raised tables are used a lot in other boroughs with success.

I'd like to see a dedicated cycle route as part of the scheme as people cycle on the pavements anyway.

Anyway, this is the basis of the petition:



More details from petition creator

Sydenham Road is a local high street and a vital East-West London ‘A’ road link. Although some aspects of the plan are welcomed by local people, the FURTHER REDUCTION of road width is not. It will cause more congestion to all traffic including buses and emergency vehicles. It will be dangerous for cyclists and will endanger pedestrians when cyclists are forced onto the pavements.

During the consultation process, people have consistently said that they do not want more congestion on Sydenham road, Westwood Hill or Kirkdale, nor do they want the pavements widened. They just want them to be cleared of clutter, hoardings, shop encroachment and rubbish. These comments have been ignored. Due to the already slow movement of vehicles, HUMPS on Sydenham Road (raised platforms, cushions etc.) are unnecessary. They damage vehicles and shake buildings, cause noise pollution and increase fumes. They quickly deteriorate, creating potholes and uneven surfaces, increasing repair costs to tax payers. All of these will adversely affect the local environment making Sydenham less attractive for those who live, work, shop and travel through it.

[Greg Whitehead]

I saw a load of their leaflets in Ladbrokes on Saturday and wondered who was behind them. They had a website but I failed to make a note of it.
Anyway, while I agree the narrowing Sydenham Road wil have a minimal effect of tafic flows (although the Newlands Park junction and the left turn into Mayo Roadb both benefit from two lanes), it will surely have an effect on parking, which would annoy traders I think.

I'd certainly agree with you on the Mayow Park turning Simon however it would appear that a large amout of drivers, apart from buses such as the 75, seem to use the left-turn into Newlands Park to [naughtily] get the 'jump' and be ahead of the traffic that has correctly sat in the right-hand lane at the junction outside the bookies?

[admin]

Seems as if the petition has been setup by a "Gwyn Maysey" who after a quick good search seems to set up a lot of petitions to stop things from happening.

Can you expand? Google shows her supporting the Platform 1 gate petition but I can't find any other hits.

Admin

[Greg Whitehead]

Seems as if the petition has been setup by a "Gwyn Maysey" who after a quick good search seems to set up a lot of petitions to stop things from happening.

Can you expand? Google shows her supporting the Platform 1 gate petition but I can't find any other hits.

Admin

I'd imagine she can expand herself given that she has just registered.

Expect some incoming Lee.

[gwynmaysey]

I have just been reading the thread on the above leaflets, and decided I had better register on this site so that I can put my side of the "story" relating to all of this.

Firstly, site administrator is absolutely correct. I do NOT set up petitions willy-nilly, as implied by leenewham. In fact I have never done so before, although I have supported some other petitions.

These include the one relating to the keeping open of the gate at the "up" platform (platform 1), at Sydenham Station. And I was very active in campaigning for that, which I mention particularly to demonstrate that I support a balance of public and private transport. I trust this nails the potential lie that I am anti public transport. I am not.

However, as a 61 year-old with COPD (look it up if you don't know what it is!) I also rely on my car a great deal. And I started this campaign to bring to the attention of Sydenham residents, workers and travellers the truth about the proposals for Sydenham Regeneration.

The consultation carried out by the Council last year, via a questionnaire, notably omitted to mention the proposals for narrowing Sydenham Road still further, and putting raised platforms down it. This means that when the results of the consultation are announced, there will - of course- be no mention of any objections to these aspects of the plans.

My reasons for opposing them are clearly laid out elsewhere (http;//petitions.number10.gov.uk/savesydenham, for those who were unable to find it) - so I shall not restate the arguments here. But because I believe in democracy I wanted to find out whether I was alone in fearing these consequences. Hence the leaflets and the petition.

[And for the record - of all of the shops and businesses in Sydenham Road whom I and colleagues have approached only 2 have said they agree with the proposals. Most of the remainder are horrified by them - and I have their signatures on the paper petition to prove it].

You may not agree - which is your perogative, and one which I entirely respect. But please do not fall into the trap of regarding me as an habitual, anti public transport/cycling/walking, activist. I am none of these things. Merely a long-term Sydenham resident and Lewisham taxpayer who is fed-up with the "anti-cars-at-all-costs brigade", and of having her views run roughshod over by others who claim to speak for her - but dont.

Finally, if anyone on this thread would like to meet to discuss the issue in more depth, I should be happy to do so.

[admin]

The consultation carried out by the Council last year, via a questionnaire, notably omitted to mention the proposals for narrowing Sydenham Road still further, and putting raised platforms down it. This means that when the results of the consultation are announced, there will - of course- be no mention of any objections to these aspects of the plans. .

I think I should state in the interests of clarity that the latest 2008 Consultation/Questionnaire (link above) did show widened pavements and raised crossings. It would be surprising if the results of the consultation did not include objection (for me as a cyclist it was the raised platforms). Lewisham would be very foolish to say there was none.

I seem to be questioning statements of both sides. So I hope some balance there.

Admin

[gwynmaysey]

To be fair - you are strictly speaking, accurate. It was shown on the plan, but not asked about in the Questionnaire. So most people have not picked up on it (or at least, that is the feedback I am getting on the ground), and when it is pointed out to them, they are very unhappy/angry about it.

[lambchops]

although i welcome the idea of wider footpaths, which may lead to some outdoor eating/drinking if they get rid of some of these shitty pound shops, nail bars and fried chicken shops, i think it might cause traffic problems.

there's only two places to cross the railway line in a car in the area and that's either at forest hill or sydenham road.

it might cause some problems, i don't know, as i'm not a town planner.

[Greg Whitehead]

Dear Gwyn,

I must freely admit to being utterly perplexed by the Raison d'être of this petition, it is confused and confusing. What is most difficult to fathom is why would local businesses in any way shape or form be against a widening of pedestrian access? I should be flabbergasted for anyone to suggest that this is truly the case. Footfall is key and of primary importance to the success of any retail business. In the case of linear high-streets versus nuclear shopping-malls this is not governed by car parking or access for traffic. Rather, it is reliant on the volume of footfall and is inextricably linked to the intention of said footfall. If people find the experience of using Sydenham Road uncomfortable/car-dominated/lacking the relevant triggers to enter a shop then people will keep walking or use it merely as a conduit from AtoB. That is inescapable fact.

By widening the pavement making the walking experience a much more pleasant undertaking local residents (the only people who matter here, not those who drive through Sydders to and from the south-circular) will be much more inclined to walk more slowly, be more receptive to any advertising from shops and be less hassled. The upshot to this will undoubtedly be greater trade for local shops. If you are trying to tell me retailers are reliant on people driving through Sydenham Road to form their ‘passing trade’ then I find that impossible to believe. The non-robust (in analytical terms) of the figure of 108 signatures and the fact that ICKX Menswear is the only obvious shop to sign-up to date bears this out.

Equally I find the tone and language of the petition and the post somewhat misleading. To suggest that the majority of local residents are against the proposals is simply wrong. I’ll hazard the majority of the signatories online are indeed part of the BALGRA as Admin potentially suggests. After all there are a good number of husband/wife combinations (the Frys and England Duces et al). 108 is hardly reaching critical mass. Words such as angry and horrified I can assure you only apply to one of your foot-soldiers who I happened upon in the sunbed salon. He was angry, apoplectic, aggressive and loud. I was awaiting the indoctrinating Daily Mail reference to immigrants and single-Mothers. Perhaps it is not the message that is being carried here that is remiss after all but the standard-bearers involved…I believe they also refer to it as Napoleon-complex…

[Greg Whitehead]

Oh and also to add if I may, I am not demeaning your requirement to drive and park due to your condition Gwyn. If this Yorkshire terrier I had the unfortunate pleasure of hearing is representative of BALGRA or your campaign I suggest you jettison him tout de suite.

Talk about demanding signatures with menaces...

I appreciate you need to have access to a parking bay on the high-street but with respect, you are the exception rather than the rule in terms of traffic currently. I cannot help thinking this 'article' has usurped and hijacked the initial intention of your objections for his own ends?

[admin]

I’ll hazard the majority of the signatories online are indeed part of the BALGRA as Admin potentially suggests.

Sorry - if that was read it wasn't intended. I have no idea of BALGRA's position or involvement if any.

If the consultation proposal is to be believed it says that the number of parking places will remain about the same. The simulations show that a narrowed road does not cut the flow of traffic. This may or may not be right but it would require specialist knowledge to check out. I've done a bit of work on traffic flow and it is beyond me.

And then TfL are the paymasters and they don't want their busses slowed. Would they be the ones giving the traffic modellers a hard time?

Admin

[nasaroc]

It think that Greg and others have made the points very well but it's just worth pointing out that that this "campaign" sets out to totally mislead and scare locals. These are the facts:

1. There is no intention to place "road humps" in Sydenham Road. This term (which makes people think of the type of road system that exists in Silverdale - or even the "cushions" which exists elsewhere on local roads) is a complete misrepresentation of the scheme.

2. There is no attempt to "narrow" Sydenham Road. There are one or two points, and one or two points only, where there are build-outs to shelter pedestrians from the end of parking bays. These extend no more than 150-200mm into the road. To call this "road narrowing" i.e. an attempt to prevent vehicles getting up and down Sydenham Road in exactly the same way that they are doing at present is a misrepresntation. TfL engineers have gone out of their way to ensure that the total volume of traffic will be in no way reduced by this scheme.

3. Nowhere on this scheme is there pavement widening.

4. The three people pushing this campaign have deliberately stirred up local traders by telling them that they "are going to lose their parking spaces". This is a total misrepresentation. The number of parking places in and around the high street will not be reduced by this scheme.

Can I ask all of you to reassure any local people, particularly traders, that this "campaign" is totally false and is attempting to completely mislead people about the true nature of the changes.

I am assured that neither LBL nor TfL are paying the campaign any attention. But it really does amaze me how people can play on others fears to foment a campaign such as this.

£2m is at stake here - much of it going to make our high street a fit place for pedestrians, shoppers and drivers. It is vital that this money is spent, to help turn our high street into the sort of place all of us want.

[sydenhamboy]

I don't agree with all of Greg Whitehead's postings - but I agree totally with his sentiments expressed in his letter.
We can't allow these pocket sized petitioners to spoil any chance of a Sydenham Road upgrade. The demographic has changed/is changing the 'tube' is coming and we need to reject anybody trying to resist - and therefore spoil - proposed improvements to the basic infrastructure of our high street along with the development of suitable facilities to serve the new Sydenhamites (as well as the old). Crappy shop-fronts to one side, it's actually a great looking High St - Victorian/Edwardian buildings all the way down, surrounded by mainly Ed/Vic housing stock. It could be very attractive - especially up by the Station area. Let's make the most of it.

[natbeuk]

Absolutely agree.

What possible motivation could these people have for such a misguided campaign???

[boon]

Please, just stop. I'm trying to stay detached from all the recent flaming and bickering, but this forum is rapidly becoming unpleasant to visit. I couldn't make the last pub crawl for other reasons, but I'll probably avoid the next one if some of the posts I've seen here are representative of the attendees.

At the very least try to keep it in the Town Pub section. Preferably let's try to keep it civil. It's just the internet.

edit: the post I was referring to was removed - all the others in here have been very reasonable and enlightening!