SE23.com - The Official Forum for Forest Hill & Honor Oak, London SE23
Online since 2002   11,000+ members   72,000+ posts

Home | SE23 Topics | Businesses & Services | Wider Topics | Offered/Wanted/Lost/Found | About SE23.com | Advertising | Contact | |
 Armstrong & Co Solicitors



Post Reply  Post Topic 
Pages (11): « First < Previous 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 Next > Last »
Highway improvements to Dartmouth Road
Author Message
P1971


Posts: 816
Joined: Feb 2009
Post: #181
27-03-2016 02:17 PM

Does anyone know when the actual works are scheduled to start?

Also what's the timescale for the works from start to finish?

A few weeks ago I was told minor works would start in around a months time with major works starting in 3 months, but then I heard they were due to start much later than this.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Perryman


Posts: 820
Joined: Dec 2006
Post: #182
28-03-2016 02:47 PM

Quote:
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

Disaster?
Can anyone explain the benefits of this project?
What do the stakeholder want?

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Anotherjohn


Posts: 376
Joined: May 2005
Post: #183
28-03-2016 02:57 PM

Maybe they're hoping to encourage a bit more footfall like in the old days...


   

   



Attached File(s) Thumbnail(s)
   

This post was last modified: 28-03-2016 03:05 PM by Anotherjohn.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
samuelsen


Posts: 449
Joined: Feb 2016
Post: #184
28-03-2016 04:29 PM

Thanks for sharing the pictures, had no idea Forest Hill once had a Tesco!!! How things change and move on.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
michael


Posts: 3,255
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #185
28-03-2016 06:30 PM

It looks like it was a very small Tesco. By the end of thr 1970s they had moved across the road into what is now Paddy Power. That became Londis and then was vacant for decades.
What I find interesting in the photos is the lack of parking restrictions. Back in the 60s so few people had cars that parking wasn't a problem. Oh the good old days!

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Anotherjohn


Posts: 376
Joined: May 2005
Post: #186
28-03-2016 06:51 PM

Quote:
so few people had cars that parking wasn't a problem


...except when some ignorant s*d blocked the road with his horse and cart!



Attached File(s) Thumbnail(s)
       

This post was last modified: 28-03-2016 06:54 PM by Anotherjohn.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Perryman


Posts: 820
Joined: Dec 2006
Post: #187
29-03-2016 12:29 AM

Brilliant pictures and if that's the plan, I take it all back.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Red67


Posts: 141
Joined: Nov 2007
Post: #188
29-03-2016 08:46 AM

BUT...

"Can anyone explain the benefits of this project?"

A good question that deserves repeating....

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Ligersaur


Posts: 60
Joined: Sep 2014
Post: #189
29-03-2016 09:05 AM

Red,

If you have not already reviewed the proposed works documents cited earlier in the thread, then I suggest that you do.

If you have already reviewed the proposed works and do not see that there will be an improvement to Dartmouth Road, then I stand by my response to your first message.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Perryman


Posts: 820
Joined: Dec 2006
Post: #190
29-03-2016 11:13 AM

I thought my original question quite reasonable.

Anotherjohn has given his vision of a pedestrian filled, car free utopia and to be fair, the pictures look very similar to the pedestrian filled car free utopia on the pdf front cover of these proposed works.

I know details count for nothing these days, but I do not follow how changing the pavement material, lowering the curb, installing non-crossing crossings, etc achieve this goal. We had some of that on Perry Vale and all it achieved was creating a good run for the quadbike gangs.

No-one has managed to real off 3 real benefits, off the top of their heads, and all we have is a rather terse suggestion people read through 10 pages of posts to find all the pds including michael's leaked updates. No-one is going to do that.

Presumably some earlier response to Red also applies to me, and I am not going to dereference that pointer in 10 pages of posts either.
I'm a positive person - I'll take it as a compliment.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
michael


Posts: 3,255
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #191
29-03-2016 12:44 PM

Quote:
No-one has managed to reel off 3 real benefits, off the top of their heads

1. Pavements that are safer to walk on (because they don't stick up all over the place)
2. Double yellow lines to prevent illegal (and legal parking) on a narrow main road
3. Buses that serve the town centre to encourage use of buses and of local shops

Beyond this I hope that a better strategy for shops to load/unload can be implemented, and there may be very slightly more parking spaces (but not many). I'm also hoping that the aesthetics of the high street will be improved with so much money spent on it.

Those are fairly limited benefits, but they are nevertheless benefits. It would have been nice to achieve more with £600k, but sadly I doubt anything more radical would get the support of the traders, neighbours, drivers, or bus companies.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nomis46


Posts: 5
Joined: Nov 2015
Post: #192
29-03-2016 01:32 PM

I would imagine that the idea is public realm improvements will improve the environmental quality of this section of Dartmouth Road making it a more pleasant place to visit. This can help to stimulate footfall for local shops and increase the amount of time people are willing to dwell within the area as well as helping to change the perception of the high street as it stands.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
P1971


Posts: 816
Joined: Feb 2009
Post: #193
29-03-2016 04:09 PM

"Beyond this I hope that a better strategy for shops to load/unload can be implemented"

Me too Michael. I really hope the designers take Anotherjohn's suggestion about having loading/parking bays on the wide pavement outside Paddy Power into serious consideration. Which as I mentioned before would solve the problems with having a bay outside Laurel's florist which in my eye's just wouldn't work practically & Laurel's think the same too.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Cllr Paul Upex


Posts: 41
Joined: Jan 2014
Post: #194
31-03-2016 10:15 AM

I just wanted to provide a response and update to some of the issues raised within this thread - a thank you to the designers and council officers for providing further information and explanations.

Purpose of the scheme

The key scheme objectives in no particular order are to:

• Reduce speed to 20mph
• Manage traffic & parking
• Support local economy
• Enhance environment
• Improve sense of arrival in Forest Hill
• Increase pedestrian activity

Consultation

• 2 Stakeholder meetings Feb 2015 and March 2016
• Presentations at 3 Forest Hill Assembly meetings
• Public consultation on concept design held between 29th May and 30th June 2015
• Public consultation on preliminary design held between 11th December to 25th Jan 2016.

Next steps

• Cellar surveys being carried out March/ April 2016 –( primary purpose is so that the existence and condition of cellars are known before construction works start. Many Victorian-era high street properties have basements and quite a few of those extend under the footway. Glass cube skylights are a sign that basements exists (see attached image from Google of no’s 2 & 2a Dartmouth Rd). When the footway above is dug up and replaced by improvement works, it is not unheard of for the cellar to be breached or damage to occur. Doing the survey helps lessen the risk of damage for both the council and the property owner)
• Detail design starts April for 3 months
• Scheme plans publicised September 2016
• Construction starts early 2017
• Estimated 6 month construction period for completion late spring/ early summer 2017

Other issues

Frontage outside of shops

The council are at present are examining land registry records and highway records. They also pointed out that although land may be owned by businesses, it can at the same time be designated as highway and subject to highway laws and rights.

Loading bay at Laurels

Regarding the loading bays outside the Florist, the project co-ordinators have reservations about moving the loading bays to the other side of the road as they are keen to provide bays where loading activity takes place, otherwise it is highly likely that businesses will continue to load where it is most convenient - crossing the road with plants etc is not ideal and could easily lead to unofficial loading. It is always best to cater for business activity and design these issues out, rather than rely on enforcement which will always be ad hoc and subject to human nature. I have been assured that they will do what they can to allow a display at the florists, and are sure the design team can look again to see if anything can be done to minimise the impact of the bays - whether they can be offset slightly for instance.

The other concern with introducing bays outside Paddy Power is that these would significantly detract from the public space that we are trying to create. The strong view from the initial community-led design workshop was to create an attractive space for seating/community use and much of the design philosophy has been built around the idea of creating spaces/places. A loading bay in this location may impact on the existing tree canopies and would significantly reduce the size, quality and utility of the space, and we are constrained if the telecoms companies do not allow us relocate the telephone boxes as planned. Therefore, if we can avoid it by the solution above that will be our preference.

For further information contact: transport@lewisham.gov.uk

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chrisse23


Posts: 13
Joined: Oct 2013
Post: #195
31-03-2016 12:02 PM

Sorry to be a pedant, but double yellow lines will have no impact on illegal parking as michael suggests. As usual, it is the people who park legally who will be restricted, but that seems to be the aim.

As for a Utopian vision of car free streets filled with bustling shoppers, I can't see how a major thoroughfare between the South Circular and Crystal Palace could ever be such. All that will happen is that traffic will be squeezed and spill out on to the South Circular causing even more congestion. Much of the congestion is caused by loading activity and buses, but if we banned either, the vision of bustling car free streets would be impossible.

What I really object to, however, is the restriction of lane-width. All this will cause is conflict between two wheeled road users wishing to filter (both cyclists and motorcyclists can and will legally do this) and 4 wheeled road users stuck in the inevitable congestion when two HGVs meet travelling in opposite directions or traffic is queueing to get onto the South Circular as normal.

Also, the lazy idea that widening pavements will create more footfall has no basis in logic. This supposes that there is masses of latent demand that can be served by widening footpaths. I can't see any evidence of this. What would actually increase footfall is moving the station car park to the other end of the shopping parade and offering cheap parking or alternatively building a wheelchair/pram friendly bridge over the railway line at the other end of the Perry Vale car park, but this is obviously a step too far for the ideologues as the objective seems to clearly be restricting car usage rather than improving the accessibility and desirability of local businesses.

Anyway, moan over.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
rshdunlop


Posts: 1,111
Joined: Jun 2008
Post: #196
31-03-2016 12:48 PM

The best way to make Dartmouth Road pleasant for pedestrians would be to make sure traffic flows through efficiently. Having a lovely public space beside a honking, rumbling, particulate-emitting traffic jam will not make people want to use the space. Widening the footpaths and narrowing the carriageway will make the environment less pleasant, not more.

Lewisham claim there is no problem with illegal parking. Every one here knows there is. If Lewisham don't think there is a problem, they are not going to be doing effective enforcement within the new scheme. Saying the carriageway is wide enough for two buses to pass and therefore wide enough for this stretch of road seems simplistic to me. I sincerely hope to be proved wrong, but I think this may make things worse.

The first of the objective above should be to INCREASE traffic speeds to a potential 20 mph. Speeding traffic is not a problem. Standing traffic is.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
michael


Posts: 3,255
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #197
31-03-2016 01:33 PM

chrisse23 wrote:
Sorry to be a pedant, but double yellow lines will have no impact on illegal parking as michael suggests. As usual, it is the people who park legally who will be restricted, but that seems to be the aim.


With single yellow lines people can load and unload and I get the feeling that some people take advantage of that. A parking warden would need to see you parked for at least 5 minutes before issuing a ticket. On Sundays people can currently legally park on most of Dartmouth Road, which completely prevents buses passing each other. At least on other days the illegal parking on single yellows is limited to a small number of cars, so buses can eventually find a way to squeeze past each other.

People rarely park on double yellow lines (or red lines) as they know they are much more likely to get fines and other road users are far less tolerant of such behaviour. In addition when new parking restrictions are introduced parking enforcement is tightened up to ensure people park legally.

I completely agree with your idea of a footbridge across the railway. Sadly this would cost about £3m, so I don't think it is very likely (and nor did the head of planning for Lewisham when I spoke to him about it a year ago). But there is a car park behind Sainsburys, closer to the shops than any of the car parks in Bromley town centre are to the shops, and free for two hours.

Sadly motorists (including me) are lazy - once you are in a car you want to park as close to the shop as possible, even if this means spending 2 minutes circling round the block looking for a space, rather than using the car park which is three minutes away from the destination.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Perryman


Posts: 820
Joined: Dec 2006
Post: #198
31-03-2016 04:49 PM

Quote:
1. Pavements that are safer to walk on (because they don't stick up all over the place)
2. Double yellow lines to prevent illegal (and legal parking) on a narrow main road
3. Buses that serve the town centre to encourage use of buses and of local shops

Thanks Michael.

I'm not entirely convinced. Making the pavements safe should not be trumpeted as an improvement project - it should be routine.

And if the reason for the double yellows is to protect the new paving, they only need look at the pavement on the side with double yellows today - it is just as wrecked as the single yellow side.
They should raise the kerbs, instead of lowering them. Blurring the boundary between pavement and road is an open invitation for traffic to ride up.

Generally, encouraging compliance with the new speed limits by using cyclists on narrowed lanes and inviting pedestrians onto non crossings is morally in the same book as using human shields in battle. Lovely.

However, the extra southbound bus-stop is a good idea - it is a long stretch between the fitness centre and library. And for those going south, a bus-stop away from the s-circ fumes is an attractive option. That certainly is £10 of yellow paint well spent.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Anotherjohn


Posts: 376
Joined: May 2005
Post: #199
31-03-2016 06:20 PM

Quote:
The other concern with introducing bays outside Paddy Power is that these would significantly detract from the public space that we are trying to create


The space outside Sylvan Post and Paddy Power is already established as a sitting-out area and it works fine yet the proposals seek to provide another sitting-out area on the forecourt of Heron House whilst there is a large sitting-out area on the ramp to the swimming pools, which will be be complimented by alterations to the frontage of the library and Louise House encouraging people to sit-out on low walls and concrete benches.

I think we're okay for sitting-out areas - but thank you very much for sharing that fluffy, technicolour, rose-tinted specs dream with business owners who would quite like to see some more customers coming through their doors.

Bearing in mind that our climate dictates the demand for people wanting to spend their time playing musical chairs all the way up and down Dartmouth Road, I'd say carve a long parking bay into Dartmouth Road's widest pavement from Derby Hill to The Bra Shop and shoppers will be happy to park their cars there and spend money in our shops, restaurants and bars every hour of the day come rain or shine!

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
P1971


Posts: 816
Joined: Feb 2009
Post: #200
31-03-2016 08:48 PM

"bay at Laurels

Regarding the loading bays outside the Florist, the project co-ordinators have reservations about moving the loading bays to the other side of the road as they are keen to provide bays where loading activity takes place, otherwise it is highly likely that businesses will continue to load where it is most convenient - crossing the road with plants etc is not ideal and could easily lead to unofficial loading. It is always best to cater for business activity and design these issues out, rather than rely on enforcement which will always be ad hoc and subject to human nature. I have been assured that they will do what they can to allow a display at the florists, and are sure the design team can look again to see if anything can be done to minimise the impact of the bays - whether they can be offset slightly for instance.

The other concern with introducing bays outside Paddy Power is that these would significantly detract from the public space that we are trying to create. The strong view from the initial community-led design workshop was to create an attractive space for seating/community use and much of the design philosophy has been built around the idea of creating spaces/places. A loading bay in this location may impact on the existing tree canopies and would significantly reduce the size, quality and utility of the space, and we are constrained if the telecoms companies do not allow us relocate the telephone boxes as planned. Therefore, if we can avoid it by the solution above that will be our preference."

Can you please see posts #164 #165 & #168 especially!

Local businesses are TELLING YOU how this can work! Your project co-ordinatiors have probably never even spent a day on D Rd, we do every day!

Oh & who's the "We" that are trying to create this space?

This response is exactly why I want a public meeting! & hey because the works are not due to start until early 2017 there's more than plenty of time for one!

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Pages (11): « First < Previous 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 Next > Last »

Friends of Blythe Hill Fields


Possibly Related Topics ...
Topic: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Development of Highway Dartmouth Rd Garthess 4 4,936 13-04-2017 06:22 PM
Last Post: admin