Sydenham Road Pamphlets

[admin]

I agree boon. I have deleted the preceeding post to which boon refers.

Robust discussion is OK but when it slips into plain abuse in Town Hall or Town Cafe it is in breach of the basic guideline to which we all agreed. The Town Pub section is there for flaming between consenting adults, but not here.

I hate deleting posts so please keep arguements civil. After all the whole point is to win people over to one's point of view.

Admin

[Greg Whitehead]

Thinking back Scott it was a hardcopy of the Sydenham_Consult.pdf that you have attached that he was brandishing. His 'pitch' was partly as nasaroc surmised.

The conversation went along these lines;

Anon "Under these plans you will lose your car-parking bay. What do you think of that then eh? Eh?"

Manageress " But I don't have a car-parking bay. I park round the back in Lidl or Somerfield"

Anon "But just look, Look! Look here! These traders will lose their car-parking bay all the way up here, here, just here were they are narrowing it! Look! See?"

I didn't hear the rest but his pitch did seem rather one-dimensional. I genuniely thought he was close to causing himself a mischief as he got redder and louder. In my humble opinion if UpToScratch did sign-up it would only be to have gotten this man out of the shop. He really was that aggressive and loud and there were customers needing attending to.

[admin]

Reduction in parking will be seen by many traders as a touchstone on accepting the plan. The important sentence in the consultation is:

"Overall the amount of parking bay space in Sydenham Road itself and the side
road returns will remain about the same."

Seems explicit enough. Can someone explain what the problem is ... ?

Admin

[scott.l.hamilton]

To help explain the consultation again, the council is asking the "consultant" if he will be able to attend the Sydenham Assembly (4 Dec, 7pm, Grove Centre) and help answer some of these questions. Admin has it correct though, parking spaces will remain the same, they just may be shifted around a bit.

The "humps" are referring (I Believe) to the elevated road sections by Venner, Newlands Park and Mayow road. These will not "shake" buildings...

On another note, I will be involved on the Business and enterprise table. Anything that people would like me to try and raise / address at the meeting?

[Greg Whitehead]

Reduction in parking will be seen by many traders as a touchstone on accepting the plan. The important sentence in the consultation is:

"Overall the amount of parking bay space in Sydenham Road itself and the side
road returns will remain about the same."

Seems explicit enough. Can someone explain what the problem is ... ?

Admin

Yes, you know that and I know that Admin. nasaroc has clearly posted ealier in the thread that there will be no reduction in car-parking bays and that the road will not be narrowed (which forms the basis of this persons pitch).

My fear however is that this campaign may get some traction, buy-in if you will, precisely because of the tactics invloved. I am being vigilant and have already broached the subject with a number of local traders as nasaroc asked.

That written Gwyn wrote that all but two traders they have approached have signed up. And I can see how that could be the case. If you are a local trader who isn't aware of the true facts you may well sign based on the lies [?] you may be told and more to the point how many may will have signed just to get this guy out of their shop and get on with running a business?

That's the point I'm trying to make. This loose hold on fact and tactic of demanding signatures with menaces may well be working...Gwyn may well feel vindicated by the end-result and not care about the 'dirty tricks' involved.

[Thomas]

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.

Please do come along to the next pub crawl - the ones I've been on have all been pleasant and convivial and not in the least bit unpleasant.

[Greg Whitehead]

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.

Please do come along to the next pub crawl - the ones I've been on have all been pleasant and convivial and not in the least bit unpleasant.

I have chatted via PM with boon this morning and have apologised. He does hope to make the next STF gettogether which is wonderful news.

[nasaroc]

I think that Greg's summation of the conversation he witnessed is typical of the way that this small group is scaremongering traders into signing their petition.

Two shop owners have told me that Tom Sutcliffe also came into their premises and told them that parking bays "were going to disappear".

I attended the first of the consultation workshops at the Naborhood Centre in March. The turn-out (which was less than seven people) included Tom Sutcliffe and Gwyn Masey.

Both spent the entire meeting desperately trying to unearth some small crack in the scheme which they could mount into a campaign. Having tried the "bumps" in the road argument, followed by the "road narrowing" argument and this having shown to be far from the reality, they then settled on the "loss of parking bays" approach. Ian Plowright (the LBL officer in charge of the project) and the works engineers patiently went through the scheme from Cobb's Corner to Mayow Road adding up the number of parking bays and showing that there was no overall loss. The engineers were totally confident that the overall number of bays would remain the same - and LBL even offered to look into setting up extra parking bays in Silverdale or other side streets in the extreme unlikelihood that some bays were to go. (Frankly, I'm against more bays in side streets, since I believe that local residents not just traders need to be given consideration.)

Surely now is the time for our local councillors (or even our Town Centre Manager) to rebuff these absurdities with a simple leaflet reassuring traders that the claims made by this group are inaccurate.

[Chazza]

1. There is no intention to place "road humps" in Sydenham Road.

2. There is no attempt to "narrow" Sydenham Road.

3. Nowhere on this scheme is there pavement widening.

...etc

I've nothing further to add to your post other than my voice in complete support.

...and besides, even if a few parking spaces were to disappear, would it really affect trade that badly? Do that many people actually get a car out and drive to our high street to do their shopping? We've got a few good independent shops on the high street, and also some not-so-good shops. However, I wouldn't have thought that the high street, in its current state, would be much of a draw to people not within a few minutes' walk or bus ride.

I find it quite ironic that the only identifiable signatory on the petition isn't an establishment where I'd spend my money, and I only live about three minutes walk from it.

[mikej]

I am concerned that the provision for cycling in the plans seems absent (other than the odd image of a cycle chained to a parking point). Surely in any development like this more provision should be built in? We need to encourage walking, use of buses and cycling in the face of climate change. It is irresponsible not to include cycling provision, such as cycle paths separated from the bits used by motor vehicles.

[Chazza]

cycle paths separated from the bits used by motor vehicles

Sorry Mike, but I disagree. Many of the problems that we cyclists face stem from some drivers believing that we don't belong on the roads with them. Separating us from motor traffic or, even worse, mixing us in with pedestrians, just reinforces this.

I cycle along Sydenham Road in my daily commute and I don't think it's particularly bad; the main problem is that cars use the side turnings without watching out for cyclists and I don't think that a narrow cycle lane in the gutter will help with this.

[christoff]

Lawrie Park Road was seemingly distributed to over the weekend too, as I too received one of these flyers full of nonsense and lies. They refer to an online petition - is there anyway we can provide positive responses on this petition website to try and counter the absurd assumptions and completely confused message that this group are spreading?

I too attended the last of the consultation meetings, and despite Ian Plowright and the consultants Atkins responding clearly and comprehensively to some of these 'crack' arguments, once your mind is made up there is no reasoning with the vocal minority. It is however, surprising they have waited so long to launch this campaign, as I would think the formal consultation is now well and truly over. Perhaps the Council can provide the consultation results at the meeting on Thursday to hopefully dispel this negativity? The petition is perhaps there only way of being heard now, and a last resort.

[Chazza]

We received one of these silly pamphlets yesterday (Venner Road). Does anyone think it's worth putting together a counter to this misinformation campaign, or is it unnecessary given that the council aren't paying it any attention? I would be gutted if the improvements were deriled because of these untruths.

[Chris Best]

The long awaited report on the outcome of the consultation is being presented to the Mayor and Cabinet next Wednesday 25 February -
http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres ... ry2009.PDF. The outcome is further work with Transport for London on funding the scheme so that the high street is more of a destination than a "drive-through".

[bencooke]

so gwyn, how many signatures do you need to delay improvements to the high street?

[nasaroc]

The recommendation to the Mayor and Cabinet meeting is to approve this scheme and forward it to TfL.

This will bring a much-needed £2m transformation of the fabric and structure of Sydenham Road.

The consultation period was long and detailed. We now need to move to implementation.

[Eagle]

A very elderly friend of mine living in Venner Road has received this note but totally confused what it is about.

I have not seen the pamplet so would be obliged if some kind person could give a potted version.

[admin]

The pamphlet is downloadable from here:
http://www.sydenham.org.uk/news_sydenha ... ation.html

Admin