Sydenham Society

[JGD]

on this somewhat exasperating topic .

Please do not despair so - it may seem exasperating, but in fact is very illuminating.

There are some excellent points and observations being made on both sides of the debate.

And in some ways it is essential in that in essence it helps people understand how councils treat their civic societies and residents comparably in planning matters.

[mosy]

That sounds like A Plan (as they say), Sydenham.

[TredownMan]

So are you going to make any representation to the planning committee about your views on the application?

Yes!
but: in doing so, I won't claim that my views are the "voice of the community"

[Larky]

Surely the Sydenham Society are reading this thread ?
Why cant they just say what powers (or not) they have, so as least we can then understand what contribution (if any) they have over planning approval?

[JGD]

Perhaps publish their Constitution and the date it was adopted.

That, as a minimum, must define the society's objectives and how their committees and sub-committees operate - along with their geographic reach.

[JGD]

Would you care to elaborate on the "significant examples" where SydSoc and FHSoc have made representations outside their geographic domains?

Apologies - belatedly realised I had not responded to this very reasonable request.

My examples are focused on each and every phase of the Bell Green Development.

That development was started in 1993.

I have written on here and on se26.life and se23.life about the key issues on the final phase for which the outcome was a rejection by the planning committee.

FOHSoc and SydSoc campaigned against the final phase and additionally SydSoc successfully moved to have the Bell Green Gasholder listed locally. I will not repeat the details here - the posts remain on various threads.

However neither of the societies has been able to bring forward a single Bellingham resident with whom they consulted. And despite the existence of a 570+ signatory petition I cannot find a neighbour or friend who either signed or knew of this petition.

The key loss from this rejection was for two significant mitigation factors to be lost to the immediate neighbours of the site. And most importantly those most affected by the delivery or non-delivery of benefits are Bellingham ward residents and particularly residents around the streets close to the Perry Rise/Perry Hill traffic lights..

The proposal contained provision to open access to the rear of Livesey Hall and provide more parking spaces there to patrons of that facility. On funeral days near-neighbours are prevented from enjoying basic amenities such as parking and/or drop-offs caused by the influx of patrons' cars.

Secondly there were proposals to introduce SCOOT measures to provide improved traffic movements through Perry Rise and Perry Hill - now also lost.

I cannot establish whether either society even understood these issues never mind considered their importance.

My neighbours and I have waited since the mid-1990's for the final phase to introduce these mitigation measures.

[Pally]

The potential to use the forum positively remains!

I agree about the Poodle Club as an example of negativity - but they defended themselves very effectively and also had many many positive comments ...the negativity soon disappeared because the positive took over!

The same could happen with the Sydenham Society and then the potential could be realised! It is a great shame!

[JayB]

I was horrified by how a few people on here people launched into the Poodle Club, but it doesn't stop there. Much of hte same people are also quick to put down individuals making suggestions for improvements to litter , transport and so on , either by contradicting the individual trying to make a change or by denying there is a problem. eg "we've had no water for a week " "I have always found the water in Sydenham is fan-f....-tastc. Don't you even realise that ..." OK you get my drift.

They will disagree with pretty much anything that does not suit their interests by trying to shut down the conversation rather than through debate and they do seem to have the herding instincts of wild dogs going in for the kill when it suits. So i can well understand the frustrations of small local businesses but i still don't think a boycott is necesarily the solution.

But all this means the average person is left with no voice whatsoever, neither on this forum nor through the Sydenham Society nor reportedly some of our local councillors. We were warned by neighbours when we moved here 11 years ago that Sydenham was ruled over by an elite who brooked no debate and liked to dictate terms to the rest of us. It was the view these individuals had had things their own way for years. The list included some at the SS, some on here and some councillors.I have done everything to beleive that this was all hyperbole but I am learning to a large extent perhaps it is not.

But come on folks we do not have to kowtow to these people and I 'm sure every organisation, just like this forum has a majority of people who do things for genuine community minded reasons albeit we might disagree with each other many times along the way..Shutting up gives into the playground bullies and that the end of the day is all that some people are. Don't lets put up with it!

[TredownMan]

Here's the issue. It's not just about the society vs "greedy developers" coming in here to make some cash.

Imagine if you wanted to build a modest kitchen extension and you were told, on the public record, that a civic society - representing 1000 of your neighbours - thought your plans were "unneighbourly", ugly, and wrecked the neighbourhood.*

And then dragged to attend a public planning meeting to defend your proposed kitchen extension because the same organisation - "your neighbourhood voice" - had lodged a complaint which under Lewisham council standing orders must go to planning committee. You'd be humiliated/annoyed.

This is not to argue against having a planning system, or to argue that people should be given free reign to build whatever they like, regardless of the impact on others, or that people are necessarily wrong to object if they don't like what their neighbours are building.

But: If people want to use the planning system to stop other developments, based on their views of what constitutes "appropriate design" or what is "neighbourly", they should be clear when they are speaking for themselves, and if it's appropriate to claim to be speaking on behalf of 1000 other residents.

*A few examples. All simple backyard extensions, taken from the council website. They're all online but I won't link or cite as that's unfair to individuals:

"An inappropriate design for construction in a Conservation Area which is covered by an Article 4 Direction. We are firm in holding this opinion despite the inclusion of four double hung sliding sash windows surmounted by what purport to be gauged brickwork arches but which, in reality, are likely to be crudely executed ‘rough-ring’ brick arches jointed in mismatching cementitious mortar. The openings are set with monotonous regularity in the wall, like windows in a railway carriage."

And another: "Will greatly reduce the cohesive nature and strong group identity of this part of Bishopsthorpe Road... There is an over-abundance of rooflights on the rear extension – the doors to the garden are full height and width so there should be enough illumination. Light will shine up in an unneighbourly fashion.... "

And another: "massive over-development. The roof has already been converted in an unneighbourly and invasive fashion, completely out of keeping with the existing modestly sized 1950s dwelling house. The Society considers that the omission of these changes from the deposited drawings indicates a measure of dishonesty on the part of the applicant... The Society considers that a basement level extension almost without any access to natural daylighting is wrong in principle, because its occupancy will depend on the consumption of electrical power to provide artificial lighting. The Climate Change Act of 2008 imposes on UK governance the requirement for a reduction in UK carbon emissions by 90% by the year 2050. This intention would be thwarted by the creation of energy dependent living space, such as the basement as proposed."

And: "The full width extension would obliterate the external ‘jigsaw’ outline at the rear.. Some extremely unfortunate and ugly extensions exist at the rear of the terrace, but this should not set a precedent.. Extension harms individual house, terrace and wider conservation area."

And: "An un-neighbourly form of development.. out of character and of inappropriate design."

[JGD]

The Society considers that the omission of these changes from the deposited drawings indicates a measure of dishonesty on the part of the applicant...

Is this an extract from a SydSoc response ? Really ? A very neighbourly response too.

And if so, I trust it was pointed out that the allegation without substantiation was potentially actionable and almost certainly defamatory.

Were SydSoc invited to withdraw it from the published response?

[TredownMan]

I dont know. Just a random example from minutes, on the council website (i dont really want to link to it out of respect for the people involved). Sydenham needs protecting from the poor taste of its inhabitants, I guess.

[JGD]

Respect to the wisdom of your judgement on that point especially.

An evident air of superiority is present there that needs to be reigned in and display some dignity and respect - for all parties, including SydSoc - either in the form of a mentor or just a wise old head.

[JayB]

JayB did your neighbours warn you of suburban version of a New World Order?

Well said decchips, you have literally made me laugh out loud. I'm afraid my poor writing style has made my neighbours look like deluded conspiracy theorists. They didn't actually leave cryptic messages suggesting dark and sinister forces would disappear us in the middle of the night for our dissent!. It was more a mention of there was no point in trying to change things because it was all stitched up in a "what can you do? let's not waste our effort " kind of way. I like the idea of Bilderberg operating out of the old co-op though - maybe that's why the lights are always on.....

But it is none the less truethat civic societies all over the UK can be found using their voice to affect council decisions to benefit the exact roads that they live on,No co-incidence surely- eg you will find press articles citing which roads in Vauxhall are no longer open to two way traffic and pointing out they are mainly where leading members of the Vauxhall society live. But they submitted a "transport plan " to benefit the area", (Vauxhall Cross, really?) not one "to further our own member's individual advantage and make their streets into nice quiet cul de sacs" Pocket squares spring to mind.

[Robin Orton]

My aging memory means I had to Google 'new world order' and 'Bilderberg group'. Very illuminating.

[JRW]

However aggravated you feel, we need to improve the situation for all Sydenham residents. Trying to tear the Syd soc apart by appealing to the council to ignore them, helps no one.

I have reservations about some of the Syd socs priorities, but it has a hard-won status that we should use to further our aims. This bad tempered discussion doesn't help anybody. We need to be polite, insistant, and cooperate in order to make the society work for all Sydenham.

Some of the people who were so aggressive against the Poodle Club were there at a set on my last visit. Their behaviour was not exactly gracious, and I feel it is extraordinary that anyone feels so entitled. If the wretched bar was so good, it would have been successful. Had the fanbase cared that much, they could have backed it and moved it to the available site close by.

JGD, I respect your right to campaign for the demolition of the gasholders; if you are an immediate neighbour you must want a decision to be made. Please, however, tone down the allegations about the protestors. I have lived close by for 27 years, feel strongly about their preservation, and have been involved in the campaign. I was at the meeting, in the press photo, and object to your statements that I am some kind of an impostor. The fact you haven't met anyone who signed the position among your neighbours may be because they know the strength of your views, and don't enjoy conflict.

[JGD]

JGD, I respect your right to campaign for the demolition of the gasholders; if you are an immediate neighbour you must want a decision to be made. Please, however, tone down the allegations about the protestors. I have lived close by for 27 years, feel strongly about their preservation, and have been involved in the campaign. I was at the meeting, in the press photo, and object to your statements that I am some kind of an impostor. The fact you haven't met anyone who signed the position among your neighbours may be because they know the strength of your views, and don't enjoy conflict.

Interesting conjecture.

I also attended a meeting. But not the one you did.

Why do you choose to speculate about my relationship with my neighbours ?

We are a happy bunch of supportive individuals in my neck of the woods.

[JRW]

The point is that I am also your neighbour, and you are unwilling to tolerate my viewpoint.

[JGD]

you are unwilling to tolerate my viewpoint.

Interesting conjecture once more.

I respect your right to have, hold and express your view - on any forum and via any democratic process you elect to engage with.

However whilst respecting that right - I will also exercise my right to to express any reasonable and opposite view.

And I would encourage you to desist from making such conjecture about you knowing how I feel - you cannot possibly know that.

And in this matter my feelings have virtually nothing to do about how I choose to argue these issues..

Interestingly after a long debate since the gas-holder decision was made, you are the first poster to cast doubts in such a personalised fashion about my actions.

[KPR]

Those comments are outrageous, particularly considering some of the utter carbuncles that grace Sydenham - still, as long as the Thorpes are preserved in aspic and a bunch of architecturally worthless gas holders aren’t knocked down so that something as low rent as Aldi doesn’t go up, never mind if a school that looks like it’s been built out of Lego (Philip Neri) gets dropped right on Sydenham’s main road, eh? If the proposed Sydenham Road development doesn’t get the go ahead, I’m going to be massively annoyed - as I commented above, I bet that the SS membership are generally resident in Upper Sydenham, so my view is that their views should be weighed accordingly, in other words it’s a bit like me commenting on a development in Kirkdale when I hardly ever go there and live a mile away. If they ever wrote a comment like those above on something I proposed to do on my house I would get legal advice with the intention of suing them - not sure how they are structured, but presumably some kind of limited liability, in which case you could sue them into insolvency unless the members were willing to come up with the money.

[leenewham]

*A few examples. All simple backyard extensions, taken from the council website. They're all online but I won't link or cite as that's unfair to individuals:

"An inappropriate design for construction in a Conservation Area which is covered by an Article 4 Direction. We are firm in holding this opinion despite the inclusion of four double hung sliding sash windows surmounted by what purport to be gauged brickwork arches but which, in reality, are likely to be crudely executed ‘rough-ring’ brick arches jointed in mismatching cementitious mortar. The openings are set with monotonous regularity in the wall, like windows in a railway carriage."

And another: "Will greatly reduce the cohesive nature and strong group identity of this part of Bishopsthorpe Road... There is an over-abundance of rooflights on the rear extension – the doors to the garden are full height and width so there should be enough illumination. Light will shine up in an unneighbourly fashion.... "

And another: "massive over-development. The roof has already been converted in an unneighbourly and invasive fashion, completely out of keeping with the existing modestly sized 1950s dwelling house. The Society considers that the omission of these changes from the deposited drawings indicates a measure of dishonesty on the part of the applicant... The Society considers that a basement level extension almost without any access to natural daylighting is wrong in principle, because its occupancy will depend on the consumption of electrical power to provide artificial lighting. The Climate Change Act of 2008 imposes on UK governance the requirement for a reduction in UK carbon emissions by 90% by the year 2050. This intention would be thwarted by the creation of energy dependent living space, such as the basement as proposed."

And: "The full width extension would obliterate the external ‘jigsaw’ outline at the rear.. Some extremely unfortunate and ugly extensions exist at the rear of the terrace, but this should not set a precedent.. Extension harms individual house, terrace and wider conservation area."

And: "An un-neighbourly form of development.. out of character and of inappropriate design."[/size]

Are these quotes really from the Sydenham Society TM? Although they are taken out of context, some of them seem utterly ridiculous. I'm not sure why they are commenting on the rear of a property anyway, especially about the 'jigsaw' outline which you would only see on Google Earth.

While they can do great work, such as saving the Forest Hill Pools, Greyhound and other places from demolition, which is to be commended, the Sydenham Society have an issue with some of their comments on planning applications which can really hinder local businesses. Some of the comments about shops in Kirkdale (especially the Woodsman and Kitchen Skills) were unrealistic and in the case of the latter, borderline ludicrous.