Sydenham Assembly 11 am this Saturday 11 June

[Rachael]

I would agree with you, Robin, if the mosaic was going on a private building. But this is a publicly owned building. Can we all just turn up with an idea and some money and remake the public realm on the nod from the council?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Robin Orton]

Again, I have no first-hand knowledge about this - perhaps Chris Best can help? - but my understanding is that the council, as owners of the building, have agreed with the mosaic sponsors' proposals - in the same way, I guess, as you or I might agree (or not) if someone wanted to put a mosaic on our house - and that in itself doesn't require the sort of public consultation you describe. There is of course the need for the appropriate planning consent; an application has been made and I understand there have been over twenty objections.

[Rachael]

The way this project has come about, which does seem to be as you summarised, Robin, is really quite unusual for a permanent public art project. That is not to say it is a bad thing that someone has taken the initiative. My concern (if I have one, and to be honest I'm formulating my opinion as I write) is that the planning application process is not the right way to get public feedback on this project. It is a reactive not proactive process for members of the public. People have to: 1. Know about the projects existence, and 2. Understand how to object (or indeed support) through the planning application system.

Most public art projects of this scale are preceded by public consultation that goes out to the public and informs them, rather than waiting for them to suss out that something is going on. How many Sydenham residents outside this forum know of these plans, and if they know, understand how to object (should they want to) through the planning system?

Again, I would stress that this is not like a private project on a private house. The Sydenham Centre will have a 'pocket park'. It is right at the heart of the high street. It is a public and shared space. It should and indeed must be treated differently.

[Tim Lund]

You're up early, Robin!

I think you're basically right on this - public-spirited private money surely has to be welcomed, and the plannning system is the way to judge it.

However, in this regard, the Sydenham Assembly may be a portent, since Chris Best sees it as developing into the Neighbourhood Forums envisaged by the Coalition's Localism Bill. In its most recent newsletter enthusiastically

In some cases, a developer may draw up plans in conjunction with a Neighbourhood Forum. Such a "site specific" plan will be known as a Neighbourhood Development Order and will not require planning permission.

[Tim Lund]

... the planning application process is not the right way to get public feedback on this project. It is a reactive not proactive process for members of the public. People have to: 1. Know about the projects existence, and 2. Understand how to object (or indeed support) through the planning application system.

Most public art projects of this scale are preceded by public consultation that goes out to the public and informs them, rather than waiting for them to suss out that something is going on. How many Sydenham residents outside this forum know of these plans, and if they know, understand how to object (should they want to) through the planning system?

Again, I would stress that this is not like a private project on a private house. The Sydenham Centre will have a 'pocket park'. It is right at the heart of the high street. It is a public and shared space. It should and indeed must be treated differently.

I have a fair amount of sympathy with this, but I would still like to defend the principle of the current planning system, which is that the rules on what can be done impacting public space are published, and details of specific proposals are published so that anyone can question whether they follow the rules. The danger of the Coalition's Localism Bill is that such powers will be lost to a Neighbourhood Forum which will make an even poorer job of the sort of public consultation you rightly ask for than is already required in the details of the existing planning system.

I think ordinary people not being able to understand the planning system is not the fundamental problem. If I can be forgiven for repeating a point made on this thread

that understanding planning was actually easier than getting a PC to work.

For me, the fundamental problem is far deeper - it is about people's confidence in using the ordinary tools of language to engage in civic life. There are, sadly, many people who emerge from our education system who don't have sufficient command of these tools, but I'm sure still a minority. A more important factor is that people's confidence in using their native abilities is undermined, which is obviously not a problem for the Oxford educated Tony Burton - and me. It shouldn't either be a barrier for someone with a PhD in public art in the urban environment.

[mummycat]

..

[Robin Orton]

On a different tack, I'd like to comment on what Chris Best said earlier on this thread:

As I said at the meeting each ward has its own Assembly and Petra stated that the voting was open to anyone who lived, worked or attended an educational establishement in the ward. It was not open to anyone who attended a faith group or shopped in the high street as this could be seen as unfair on the residents of Sydenham ward.

So someone who lives in (say) Croydon but who works in Sydenham Road from 9 to 5 Monday to Friday, but otherwise can't get out of the place fast enough, can vote. But someone who lives in SE26 (but not in Sydenham ward), who has 'attended a faith group' (is even the expression 'place of worship' no longer PC?) in the ward (say St Barts Church) every Sunday or more for thirty years and involved themselves in working for the local community in various ways for all that time, can't. That doesn't seem very fair.

And to suggest that worshipping in Sydenham and shopping in Sydenham are the same sort of thing betrays a depressing misunderstanding of what churches are there for. Shops are businesses, trying to sell things to people, wherever they come from, and thus make money; churches aren't. They are themselves communities and aspire to reach out to and help the wider communities in which they are embedded - admittedly some do this more successfuly than others.

So I think there should either be a 'residents only' voting system (as with all other elections), possibly supplemented by a 'business vote' for people who run businesses in the ward and thus have a strong stake in the community; or that people who worship in the ward should be allowed to vote on the same basis as people who work or study there.

[Rachael]

For me, the fundamental problem is far deeper - it is about people's confidence in using the ordinary tools of language to engage in civic life. There are, sadly, many people who emerge from our education system who don't have sufficient command of these tools, but I'm sure still a minority. A more important factor is that people's confidence in using their native abilities is undermined, which is obviously not a problem for the Oxford educated Tony Burton - and me. It shouldn't either be a barrier for someone with a PhD in public art in the urban environment.

Just to be clear, I don't lack the confidence to engage in civic life. I lack the information. I don't know how the mosaic project has been publicised to date, but if it is only through the planning process, the chances are that the majority of people who will see it every day will not have been aware of it at the planning stage, beyond the notice that I assume has been posted outside the building. Please correct me if I am wrong.

All I am saying is that it is unusual to only use the planning process to engage public opinion on a public art commission. It is good practice to engage the community at an early stage - even if that consultation does not result in any changes to the plans, it often helps bring the community together behind the project, or mitigate misunderstandings. If this project is about creating community spirit, the community need to be involved from an early stage. Just whacking it up (albeit having gone through planning) and saying 'Ta da! Look what a lovely thing we have done for you!' is not the best approach. Having said all that, I do NOT know what sort of public consultation has been done - just because I missed it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[Rachael]

I find it difficult to believe people aren't aware of Assemblies - aren't the posters displayed on shop doors and noticeboards? I know a hard copy of Lewisham Life isn't delivered anymore, but it's still online. This also applies to the recent complaints about Mayow Park. Don't you read the noticeboards in parks?

How would you like to be consulted? For most community groups, there is no budget for printing leaflets, so the only ways are forums like these and word of mouth.

You may find it hard to believe, but it is true. I don't know about you, but I don't stop to read notices in shop doors when I shop locally (which I will confess isn't very often). I used to read Lewisham Life when it plopped onto my doormat - I don't remember anything about the assemblies, which means if it was there it didn't grab my attention. I have not read it since it went online only - it's not something I would go looking for.

The issue is not to engage the people who will actively read notices, log on to read an online newsletter, etc. Those are the people who are already of a mind to be engaged. I know leafleting is expensive, but it's sometimes the only way. And I understand that many of the groups we are talking about are voluntary, but if they are spending public funds, I want to know what they are doing. Of course, you are right, I should get off my backside and go find out, if I'm that bothered. But without this forum, I wouldn't know this money was being spent by these organisations, so I wouldn't know there was something to be bothered about. Chicken and egg.

[Tim Lund]

I think in the Mayow Park thread, someone says: ".... I used Mayo Park several times a week and nobody ever asked my opinion." Well did you really expect someone to ask you your opinion? If you want to get involved in the decision making, then there are effective ways to do so. I think there is a meeting tomorrow evening, posters should be up in the park by now.

Why don't you start to use your voices effectively and not your keyboards?

Can I take a middle position here? I think ordinary users of Mayow Park do deserve rather more effort than is made currently to consult them - maybe another way of putting this is that the existing user group should make more of an effort to collect the views of a represtentative cross-section of users - I don't think this is amounts to spoon-feeding. And although a notice about the meeting tomorrow is now on the notice board - and rather longer ago appeared in the SydSoc newsletter - I think more should be done to publicise these meeting. I'd also like to see the meetings publicised more on this Forum, but this would be just a part of getting the communications right. On the other hand, Mummycat, who did a huge amount for FOMP when she lived here is understandably a bit ... peeved, maybe? ... that all she seems to get for her hard work is criticism, from people who don't understand the constraints under which she worked.

[Rachael]

To take up Tim's last point, I've heard a lot less from FOMP online since Mummycat left SE26, which is testament to the effort she put in to publicising their activities.

[admin]

A picture of one of the mosiac roundels as displayed at the Assembly. Picture courtesy of CB.

Admin

[Rachael]

Just a personal opinion, but looks all kinds of wrong. Totally out of keeping with the architecture of the building. Detail is too fine to read from any distance. At that scale it will look like a muddy murky blur from the other side of the street, while it will be hard to see properly from outside the building as you can't step back far enough.

I'm quite depressed.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]