Kelly, I would really appreciate it & I think others would too if you could give more information on any decisions made at this last meeting you were aware of.
[/i]

I would also be very upset if this spruce-up was at the expense of local services but believe that funding is coming from TfL, not Lewisham, and the money was allocated a couple of years ago.

I believe improvements are being funding by the GLA High Streets Fund and TfL Local Implementation Plan funding (money allocated to boroughs to spend on projects which support the Mayor's Transport Strategy).

"Loading bays – the design team confirmed that the parking bays double up as loading bays, which is why there appears to be a lack of loading in the middle and south sections. Concerns were voiced about the bay outside #19 (Florists): can this be moved slightly so as not to impact on the shop front display because of the required 1.8m minimum footway width? It was note that primarily this loading bay was to assist the florist and there isn't enough room for displays / loading or a more suitable / convenient location for the loading bay. Therefore the florist should consider formally requesting a licence to display flowers or reduce the amount display to assist other pedestrians."

Sorry I don't know how to do the quote thing.

I've spoke to the girls at Laurel's Florist as I was sure the part of the pavement where they display their flowers outside belongs to their shop and not owned by Lewisham Council. This is the case!

So there would be no need for them to apply for any licence.

Some shops have basements & many moon's ago the entrance was from the pavements outside the shopfronts. These parts of the pavement are owned by the owners of the buildings & not by Lewisham Council. There is part of the pavement (which you can clearly see where the entrance used to be) outside my shop which is owned by my shop landlord. I don't need to apply to Lewisham Council for any licence to put things there.

This convinces me even more that what Anotherjohn has said about loading/parking bays being needed on the wide pavement outside Paddy Power. If these were added there would be no need for a parking bay outside the florist so would solve this problem, and this would also still assist the florist.

I agree, but do Laurels?

I also have little doubt that the section of the pavement that is not paved is part of the building plot and can be used by the stop. The problem is that with a loading bay here the width of the actual pavement would be less than 90cm - the width of a wheel chair, and less than half the minimum width referred to by the consultants.

Thanks. I'm sure it is all very logical to accountants.
For me, the cash is all coming out the same central pot, and as you say, given the choice, local people would prefer that their services are maintained.

But if TfL insist the money is spent on the roads, then I'd argue installing the one stop pedestrian crossing at the station would greatly improve commuters, pedestrian and shoppers lives in FH - their making walking count objective.

They could reinstate the cycle highway route project - their cycling revolution objective. More cyclists generally wheeling around would help slow traffic in DR - their better streets objective - and local people on bikes are more likely to shop locally.

They could actually attempt to tackle the traffic pollution, currently way over the safe limits in FH - their better environment objective.

All these projects would have beneficial effects for DR.
Oh well. At least this project is creating employment, I guess.

But isn't traffic in Dartmouth Road, at any rate between Holy Trinity school and the South Circular, slow enough already? When I drive along it (which, as a responsible and environmentally-conscious citizen, I of course do as infrequently as possible) it usually seems to be moving at a snail's pace, particularly northbound.

A 'one stop pedestrian crossing' at the station would presumably slow it down even further.

Michael, Yes they do agree.

I popped in to Laurel's on my way home tonight & showed the girls this & they said personally they would prefer the bay's to be outside Paddy Power and that this would make more sense for everyone!

This post was last modified: 24-03-2016 07:41 PM by P1971.

"A 'one stop pedestrian crossing' at the station would presumably slow it down even further."

Yes it would, and no-one, including Cllrs, seems to be addressing the valid question (raised in the consultation by people living on residential roads further up the hill) about where traffic will inevitably be displaced to, thus creating a problem elsewhere...

Red67, as far as I know the area covered for D Rd improvements stops just before the traffic lights at the station. So this would be a separate issue I believe.

The area covered is from the library to the bookies (forgotten the name) on the corner just before the traffic lights I think.

Yes, i understand that P1971, but those of us living a bit further up the hill are concerned that the effects of the traffic management on Dartmouth Road will inevitably push traffic attempting to reach the Sth Circular (especially at busy times) onto other residential roads further up the hill... it's a vaild concern and one that hasn't been answered.

As I understand it, the official view is that the planned changes to Dartmouth Road itself should make traffic flow there easier because illegally or inconsiderately parked cars will no longer obstruct the free flow of traffic in both directions.

It was the separate suggestion about adding a new pedestrian phase to the traffic lights by the station that I was commenting on.

Hello Red67 - roughly where are you? I know that it's so easy for us to focus on how things can be improved in one part of the town without understanding how that might impact another part.

The way I had envisaged this panning-out is that the traffic would actually be able to pass through more freely, albeit at 20mph, as opposed to the current situation whereby parked vehicles in the bottleneck between The Hill and Bunka cause mini jams at all times of the day and evening.

I think there needs to be a proper public follow-up to the initial consultation so that people can put their concerns and suggestions to the designers before this project goes ahead. I'm not trying to undermine the stakeholders, but there are clearly issues that need still need to be dealt with. So does anyone agree that there ought to be a local assembly meeting at the library with the project designers in attendance?

I agree Anotherjohn!

Personally I can't make daytime meetings, so evening would be preferable for me.

Red67, my thoughts were the same as what Robin mentioned above #172

This post was last modified: 25-03-2016 12:05 PM by P1971.

The first objective for this project, listed by Lewisham is
'to support the introduction of a borough-wide 20 MPH limit, reducing vehicle speeds...'.
I would not worry too much - just like those speed cushions, carefully sized and positioned to fit easily under cars and not trouble them too much, this project is 90% cosmetic.

Would be good if everyone could say if they would like a public meeting on this or not regardless of the reasons.

If enough respond we might have a chance, plus stating if daytime or evening would suit best might help for the majority to attend.

I don't have any say so in this whatsoever but will be happy to send a group email to ask.

I am not a FH trainer, but a resident. I don't think that a public meting would be beneficial.

The whole project is against a fixed deadline and the biggest threat to its completion is procrastination through public debate.

Nearly all of the outstanding issues relate to local businesses (the main appears to be the positioning of a loading bay, for which a solution may have been found for the parties involved).

The one public issue that has been discussed is that of the 20 mph speed limit, which appears to be almost certain due to borough policy. Further, I don't expect the tailbacks on Dartmouth Road to particularly increase or decrease as they are caused by a lack of traffic flow onto the S. Circular.

My only remaining question is where will the white BMW eyesore that consistently parks on the road partially blocking the pavement park in the future?

You're probably right Ligersaur.

If my post #164 is taken in to account I wouldn't feel the need for a public meeting. Plus the feedback that Laurel's have gave we wouldn't have too.

I'd happily hope this project gets on the Road! BTW hoping it does ASAP 🙌🙌🙌

I couldn't agree with Ligersaur more. It would be a disaster if this didn't happen because too much time was spent discussing it