North Cheam and Worcester Park benefit from £2.4m facelift partially funded by Mayor of London's Outer London Fund

Peter Druhus who runs the Cheam Food Centre in North Cheam

Peter Druhus who runs the Cheam Food Centre in North Cheam

First published in News Sutton Guardian: Photograph of the Author by , Reporter

A multi-million pound regeneration project has breathed new life into two retail areas.

Small businesses in North Cheam and Worcester Park will benefit from the makeover, which has enhanced their shop fronts, widened paths, and introduced new trees and benches.

Sutton Council has been working alongside business owners and residents in carrying out the £2.4m project, which was aimed at boosting the town’s character and attracting more shoppers.

The parade between Courtenay Avenue and Lavender Road in North Cheam has new awnings and shop fronts, improved lighting, and bike racks.

Peter Druhus, owner of Cheam Food Centre in North Cheam, said: "It has increased our sales so it has definitely made a difference. 

"It is much better than before and more people are stopping."

Central Road in Worcester Park has been improved by new paving and redesigned shop fronts.

Mark Landler, who runs Cycle Power, Worcester Park said: "It looks great, especially the new signs that have gone up, they are really good. 

"It has not been a five minute job, but it has got people to realise what is in the area.  I have been here six years and I think this will really help."

The project was partially funded through the Mayor of London's Outer London Fund, which issues grants to councils seeking to improve the image of their high street.
 
It was also funded through a grant from Transport for London and a levy on developers in the area.

Street markets have also been held as part of the initiative to make the North Cheam and Worcester Park more vibrant places to shop. 

The renovation work began in May 2012 and finsihed in June this year. 

Sutton Guardian:

Mark Landler who runs Cycle Power in Worcester Park

 

Comments (9)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:19pm Wed 20 Aug 14

labyrinth says...

And yet, there is no money for the desperately needed 20 mph zone around St Dunstan's School in Cheam! In any other borough, this would have been a priority.
And yet, there is no money for the desperately needed 20 mph zone around St Dunstan's School in Cheam! In any other borough, this would have been a priority. labyrinth
  • Score: -3

9:31pm Thu 21 Aug 14

madvoiceofreason says...

It appears most of the money was spent in Worcester Park then North Cheam. Very little to show here.
It appears most of the money was spent in Worcester Park then North Cheam. Very little to show here. madvoiceofreason
  • Score: 8

4:34pm Fri 22 Aug 14

LeslieCB says...

Why is tax-payers' money being spent giving businesses new signs and awnings?

They are private businesses, so they should pay for this themselves.
Why is tax-payers' money being spent giving businesses new signs and awnings? They are private businesses, so they should pay for this themselves. LeslieCB
  • Score: 0

1:35pm Wed 27 Aug 14

ResidentTony says...

LeslieCB wrote:
Why is tax-payers' money being spent giving businesses new signs and awnings?

They are private businesses, so they should pay for this themselves.
Don't you want your local high street to be smarter and more inviting...or do you only care about the inside of your home? Once you walk out nothing affects you?
[quote][p][bold]LeslieCB[/bold] wrote: Why is tax-payers' money being spent giving businesses new signs and awnings? They are private businesses, so they should pay for this themselves.[/p][/quote]Don't you want your local high street to be smarter and more inviting...or do you only care about the inside of your home? Once you walk out nothing affects you? ResidentTony
  • Score: 1

4:07pm Wed 27 Aug 14

LeslieCB says...

ResidentTony wrote:
LeslieCB wrote:
Why is tax-payers' money being spent giving businesses new signs and awnings?

They are private businesses, so they should pay for this themselves.
Don't you want your local high street to be smarter and more inviting...or do you only care about the inside of your home? Once you walk out nothing affects you?
resident Tony.... I do care about the appearance of the high streets. I am more than happy for the pavements to be replaced. Street furniture installed. Plants planted etc. ..... at tax payers' expense.

I don't expect the tax payers' to pay to paint the outside of my home - that is my property, not publicly owned. It is MY responsibility to pay for the decoration of it.

Likewise, I don't expect the shops to get new signs and awnings at the tax payers' expense. They are the responsibility of the business owners and they should pay for them.
[quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LeslieCB[/bold] wrote: Why is tax-payers' money being spent giving businesses new signs and awnings? They are private businesses, so they should pay for this themselves.[/p][/quote]Don't you want your local high street to be smarter and more inviting...or do you only care about the inside of your home? Once you walk out nothing affects you?[/p][/quote]resident Tony.... I do care about the appearance of the high streets. I am more than happy for the pavements to be replaced. Street furniture installed. Plants planted etc. ..... at tax payers' expense. I don't expect the tax payers' to pay to paint the outside of my home - that is my property, not publicly owned. It is MY responsibility to pay for the decoration of it. Likewise, I don't expect the shops to get new signs and awnings at the tax payers' expense. They are the responsibility of the business owners and they should pay for them. LeslieCB
  • Score: 0

4:47pm Wed 27 Aug 14

ResidentTony says...

LeslieCB wrote:
ResidentTony wrote:
LeslieCB wrote:
Why is tax-payers' money being spent giving businesses new signs and awnings?

They are private businesses, so they should pay for this themselves.
Don't you want your local high street to be smarter and more inviting...or do you only care about the inside of your home? Once you walk out nothing affects you?
resident Tony.... I do care about the appearance of the high streets. I am more than happy for the pavements to be replaced. Street furniture installed. Plants planted etc. ..... at tax payers' expense.

I don't expect the tax payers' to pay to paint the outside of my home - that is my property, not publicly owned. It is MY responsibility to pay for the decoration of it.

Likewise, I don't expect the shops to get new signs and awnings at the tax payers' expense. They are the responsibility of the business owners and they should pay for them.
...so you'd do away with all govt. grants, tax breaks and tax credits to business, including start up businesses? Such grants can be very valuable in eg kick-starting potentially successful new enterprises. And actually householders can get grants for home improvements such as loft insulation, solar panel etc. Why begrudge a few businesses the opportunity to spruce themselves up, with all the community-wide knock-on benefits that can bring? They say trade is up, which means more employment, as well as the civic pride local residents feel when walking around their retail areas and seeing attractive shops? It is not just the shop owner who benefits, so a bit of well-targeted funding (which is not even from local taxes), is entirely right and appropriate, in my humble opinion.
[quote][p][bold]LeslieCB[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LeslieCB[/bold] wrote: Why is tax-payers' money being spent giving businesses new signs and awnings? They are private businesses, so they should pay for this themselves.[/p][/quote]Don't you want your local high street to be smarter and more inviting...or do you only care about the inside of your home? Once you walk out nothing affects you?[/p][/quote]resident Tony.... I do care about the appearance of the high streets. I am more than happy for the pavements to be replaced. Street furniture installed. Plants planted etc. ..... at tax payers' expense. I don't expect the tax payers' to pay to paint the outside of my home - that is my property, not publicly owned. It is MY responsibility to pay for the decoration of it. Likewise, I don't expect the shops to get new signs and awnings at the tax payers' expense. They are the responsibility of the business owners and they should pay for them.[/p][/quote]...so you'd do away with all govt. grants, tax breaks and tax credits to business, including start up businesses? Such grants can be very valuable in eg kick-starting potentially successful new enterprises. And actually householders can get grants for home improvements such as loft insulation, solar panel etc. Why begrudge a few businesses the opportunity to spruce themselves up, with all the community-wide knock-on benefits that can bring? They say trade is up, which means more employment, as well as the civic pride local residents feel when walking around their retail areas and seeing attractive shops? It is not just the shop owner who benefits, so a bit of well-targeted funding (which is not even from local taxes), is entirely right and appropriate, in my humble opinion. ResidentTony
  • Score: 2

11:25am Thu 28 Aug 14

Alex_Bradford says...

In Worcester Park and North Cheam itself, this 'regeneration' has been widely criticised, if not outright condemned. It was a reckless spending exercise on poorly conceived and rashly imposed activities, put forward by 'fly by night' contractors looking for easy money and agreed by unbelievably naïve Councillors, (who repeatedly ignored the warnings of traders and residents).

Every one of the Lib Dem Councillors responsible for these failed and failing harebrained schemes were 'retired' in advance of recent local elections, which should tell readers something about their performance. Only now, after 97% of the £2.4M has been spent, has Sutton Council bothered to ask the community how the remaining money should be spent!
... It is most interesting that the Sutton Guardian has pronounced a positive verdict, when public opinion is overwhelmingly negative and before any evaluation has even taken place.
In Worcester Park and North Cheam itself, this 'regeneration' has been widely criticised, if not outright condemned. It was a reckless spending exercise on poorly conceived and rashly imposed activities, put forward by 'fly by night' contractors looking for easy money and agreed by unbelievably naïve Councillors, (who repeatedly ignored the warnings of traders and residents). Every one of the Lib Dem Councillors responsible for these failed and failing harebrained schemes were 'retired' in advance of recent local elections, which should tell readers something about their performance. Only now, after 97% of the £2.4M has been spent, has Sutton Council bothered to ask the community how the remaining money should be spent! ... It is most interesting that the Sutton Guardian has pronounced a positive verdict, when public opinion is overwhelmingly negative and before any evaluation has even taken place. Alex_Bradford
  • Score: -1

10:47pm Thu 28 Aug 14

paulsutt17 says...

Alex_Bradford wrote:
In Worcester Park and North Cheam itself, this 'regeneration' has been widely criticised, if not outright condemned. It was a reckless spending exercise on poorly conceived and rashly imposed activities, put forward by 'fly by night' contractors looking for easy money and agreed by unbelievably naïve Councillors, (who repeatedly ignored the warnings of traders and residents).

Every one of the Lib Dem Councillors responsible for these failed and failing harebrained schemes were 'retired' in advance of recent local elections, which should tell readers something about their performance. Only now, after 97% of the £2.4M has been spent, has Sutton Council bothered to ask the community how the remaining money should be spent!
... It is most interesting that the Sutton Guardian has pronounced a positive verdict, when public opinion is overwhelmingly negative and before any evaluation has even taken place.
Probably spend it on more waste bins in Worcester Park high street. 1 every 10 feet just isn't enough!!
[quote][p][bold]Alex_Bradford[/bold] wrote: In Worcester Park and North Cheam itself, this 'regeneration' has been widely criticised, if not outright condemned. It was a reckless spending exercise on poorly conceived and rashly imposed activities, put forward by 'fly by night' contractors looking for easy money and agreed by unbelievably naïve Councillors, (who repeatedly ignored the warnings of traders and residents). Every one of the Lib Dem Councillors responsible for these failed and failing harebrained schemes were 'retired' in advance of recent local elections, which should tell readers something about their performance. Only now, after 97% of the £2.4M has been spent, has Sutton Council bothered to ask the community how the remaining money should be spent! ... It is most interesting that the Sutton Guardian has pronounced a positive verdict, when public opinion is overwhelmingly negative and before any evaluation has even taken place.[/p][/quote]Probably spend it on more waste bins in Worcester Park high street. 1 every 10 feet just isn't enough!! paulsutt17
  • Score: 0

10:59am Fri 29 Aug 14

Alex_Bradford says...

Thanks for reminding me about the bins, PaulSutt: Indeed, those 60+ new bins in Worcester Park high street are another example of Sutton Council's and especially Worcester Park & Nonsuch Ward's Councillors' financial incompetence:
They not only bought too many bins, but then doubled the quantity again! This they claimed, was because they wanted separate bins for recycled waste...
But observant residents noted that ALL the litter from ALL the bins (whether from RECYCLED waste bins or not - is thrown together, and mixed in the back of the same vehicle, at the same time! ... So it was simply another case of OUR money spent on a Sutton Council PR stunt!
Thanks for reminding me about the bins, PaulSutt: Indeed, those 60+ new bins in Worcester Park high street are another example of Sutton Council's and especially Worcester Park & Nonsuch Ward's Councillors' financial incompetence: They not only bought too many bins, but then doubled the quantity again! This they claimed, was because they wanted separate bins for recycled waste... But observant residents noted that ALL the litter from ALL the bins (whether from RECYCLED waste bins or not - is thrown together, and mixed in the back of the same vehicle, at the same time! ... So it was simply another case of OUR money spent on a Sutton Council PR stunt! Alex_Bradford
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree