Hopefully the planning application for the retail park will be rejected at the public enquiry.
We do however need to start planning for the next stage. If retail is rejected property developers will be eyeing the site with eager anticipation for housing ( which is the best use of the site). We therefore need to think not only about the use but also the type of housing provided and the design.
The Council has a policy on the level of affordable housing to be provided and on a site of this size and importance that will be 50%. Numbers are not however the only issue here. A developer will want to build a dense scheme of one and two bedroom flats, all with two bathrooms and priced way above what is affordable. That is where there profit is. They will fight giving an inch more to affordable housing than they have to and will want to deliver 1 and 2 bedroom flats fo that as well. However the Coucils own housing needs assessment will show there is a need for 3, 4, 5 and larger houses in the borough. The Council must ensure that these are delivered as part of the scheme so the needs of the community are met.
The developer will also want to cram all the social housing in the least desirable part of the site, with the worst views and suffering the greatest noise. That also needs to be rejected as on a key site such as this we should not be creating ghettos of owner occupied housing and social housing where the occupants only meet in Sainsbury's! Social housing to rent, affordable housing to buy and owner occupied housing need to be mixed so that you cannot tell who owns and lives where.
Why is this important? Because we need to create a vibrant new community that also forms part of the wider community of Sydenham, that is diverse not only in terms of the ethnicity of the people but also their social make up. That way it will intergrate into the existing community rather than stand apart.
Finally this need to look good. This is the other Sydenham Gateway!
Bell green the next stage
I agree. That area could be turned into a desirable little spot - but as you say, that might not be profitable enough to be of interest to developers. I've written to the MP and local councillor to press for less sheds and more mixed use, but with no response. I was just reading this as well http://www.gnn.gov.uk/Content/Detail.as ... wsAreaID=2 which - depending on how you read it - might bode well.
-
Pat Trembath
- Posts: 613
- Joined: 2 Oct 2004 10:54
Thanks, soulfood, for drawing our attention to the web-site and what welcome news to Sydenham Society's collective ears!
And thanks, simono, for your comments about planning for the next stage if, as we hope, the application for an out of retail centre gets the thumbs down at the public inquiry in June. You are quite right - the next hurdle will be to ensure that what is eventually built at Bell Green is of good standard and design.
Sydenham Society will be taking a full part in the public inquiry at Lewisham Town Hall which is due to last 8 days (13-16 June, 22/23 June and 27/28 June) and we will be arguing against the proosals on behalf of the community. The inquiry will be open to the general public so we hope local residents will come along and watch the proceedings.
Now for the begging bowl bit! The Society is using a barrister and as we are a not for profit organisation we have negotiated a very economic capped fee of £6,000 for the 8 days and the fee includes legal advice and case preparation.
We have already raised £3,500 from members and will continue to seek funds from whatever source available. If ST users would like to consider a small (large?) contribution towards the cause it would be gratefully received. Cheques payable to the Sydenham Society should be posted to our Treasurer c/o 97, Longton Grove, SE26 6QQ
And thanks, simono, for your comments about planning for the next stage if, as we hope, the application for an out of retail centre gets the thumbs down at the public inquiry in June. You are quite right - the next hurdle will be to ensure that what is eventually built at Bell Green is of good standard and design.
Sydenham Society will be taking a full part in the public inquiry at Lewisham Town Hall which is due to last 8 days (13-16 June, 22/23 June and 27/28 June) and we will be arguing against the proosals on behalf of the community. The inquiry will be open to the general public so we hope local residents will come along and watch the proceedings.
Now for the begging bowl bit! The Society is using a barrister and as we are a not for profit organisation we have negotiated a very economic capped fee of £6,000 for the 8 days and the fee includes legal advice and case preparation.
We have already raised £3,500 from members and will continue to seek funds from whatever source available. If ST users would like to consider a small (large?) contribution towards the cause it would be gratefully received. Cheques payable to the Sydenham Society should be posted to our Treasurer c/o 97, Longton Grove, SE26 6QQ
Hang on a minute
Who voted for the Sydenham Society? How representative are they? I never voted for them. 
I for one would dearly like to see the Bell Green site developed. I for one believe the best course of action is to persuade the developers to incorporate road improvements to alleviate the horrendous problems caused, purely, by badly designed roads.
How about persuading the developers to house Sivyer's so that the blockade of Sydenham Road can be brought to an end?
Homebase? Excellent idea. Bring it on. Then I do not have to battle the Southend Lane tunnel.
Sydenham Road shops? Turn them all into residential accomodation. They provide few worthwhile facilities. Let's face it. There can only be half a dozen of those shabby run down shops that a discerning shopper would enter. All they do is detract from the appearance of the area and reduce property values.
On the other hand perhaps the better option would be to develop residential accomodation on the Bell Green site (coupled with Sivyer's yard) and to demolish Sydenham Road and build a decent shopping precinct surrounded by quality housing and green spaces.
With very little imagination the traffic problems could be sorted out too. Problem is Lewisham has handed over control of Lewisham money to TFL. TFL would prefer to spend Lewisham money on other less needy boroughs. 
This is the first I have heard about this proposed development. No information on this issue has been distributed. None of those little yellow signs seem to have appeared. Was this the issue they hoped would be buried.
Then again local councillors ignore correspondence as does the so-called mayor. This election we seem to have been treated, by all parties, as the dumping ground for the unelectable.
I for one would dearly like to see the Bell Green site developed. I for one believe the best course of action is to persuade the developers to incorporate road improvements to alleviate the horrendous problems caused, purely, by badly designed roads.
How about persuading the developers to house Sivyer's so that the blockade of Sydenham Road can be brought to an end?
Homebase? Excellent idea. Bring it on. Then I do not have to battle the Southend Lane tunnel.
Sydenham Road shops? Turn them all into residential accomodation. They provide few worthwhile facilities. Let's face it. There can only be half a dozen of those shabby run down shops that a discerning shopper would enter. All they do is detract from the appearance of the area and reduce property values.
On the other hand perhaps the better option would be to develop residential accomodation on the Bell Green site (coupled with Sivyer's yard) and to demolish Sydenham Road and build a decent shopping precinct surrounded by quality housing and green spaces.
With very little imagination the traffic problems could be sorted out too. Problem is Lewisham has handed over control of Lewisham money to TFL. TFL would prefer to spend Lewisham money on other less needy boroughs.
This is the first I have heard about this proposed development. No information on this issue has been distributed. None of those little yellow signs seem to have appeared. Was this the issue they hoped would be buried.
Then again local councillors ignore correspondence as does the so-called mayor. This election we seem to have been treated, by all parties, as the dumping ground for the unelectable.
I absolutely oppose any development whatsoever that will increase the traffic volume on Southend Lane unless steps are taken to improve the road layout to handle the increase.
At present during peak hours - particularly during holiday periods such as the Easter and Christmas break - traffic queues along Southend Lane unable to cross under the Southend Lane rail bridge despite green traffic signals. This is entirely due to the heavy volume of cars waiting to turn right into the Sainsbury car park. The right-hand filter lane permanently extends back beyond the bridge and completely blocks Southend Lane to through traffic. How the council manages to consistently miss this huge impact on local roads conditions is frankly unbelievable. This blockage causes tremendous amounts of air and noise pollution and is exceptionally unpleasant. The small narrow through road under the rail bridge is utterly inadequate to deal with the current volume of modern traffic, let alone any increase due to extension of the current retail park.
As a resident of the lower section of Moremead Road, at these times it can become virtually impossible for me to leave my home by car. The gridlock is ridiculous and often extends onto the Bellingham estate itself. Unless council some genius can come up with a proposal that allows the three lanes of single direction traffic at the Bell Green traffic lights to continue as three lanes under the single-lane narrow Victorian rail bridge then it is madness to permit anything that intentionally increases traffic.
Surely having thousands of car parking spaces requires entry roads capable of delivering those cars into those spaces?
Perhaps council officers who agree to such proposals should be forced to sit in endless traffic jams outside their own houses to enjoy the fruits of their working apathy.
ARK
At present during peak hours - particularly during holiday periods such as the Easter and Christmas break - traffic queues along Southend Lane unable to cross under the Southend Lane rail bridge despite green traffic signals. This is entirely due to the heavy volume of cars waiting to turn right into the Sainsbury car park. The right-hand filter lane permanently extends back beyond the bridge and completely blocks Southend Lane to through traffic. How the council manages to consistently miss this huge impact on local roads conditions is frankly unbelievable. This blockage causes tremendous amounts of air and noise pollution and is exceptionally unpleasant. The small narrow through road under the rail bridge is utterly inadequate to deal with the current volume of modern traffic, let alone any increase due to extension of the current retail park.
As a resident of the lower section of Moremead Road, at these times it can become virtually impossible for me to leave my home by car. The gridlock is ridiculous and often extends onto the Bellingham estate itself. Unless council some genius can come up with a proposal that allows the three lanes of single direction traffic at the Bell Green traffic lights to continue as three lanes under the single-lane narrow Victorian rail bridge then it is madness to permit anything that intentionally increases traffic.
Surely having thousands of car parking spaces requires entry roads capable of delivering those cars into those spaces?
Perhaps council officers who agree to such proposals should be forced to sit in endless traffic jams outside their own houses to enjoy the fruits of their working apathy.
ARK
points well made by ARK.
I understand the original proposal included provision for widening the Southend Lane bridge. Unfortunately any proposal with the potential to ease congestion is frowned on by the flat earth brigade who prefer a "tax you until you squeak" approach.
Sydenham's traffic congestion is not insoluble. It is relatively easy to resolve. Where there is a will there is a way... hence this problem is unlikely to be resolved by those currently in "power".
What happened to the improved South Circular involving a six lane highway through Forest Hill? The land was bought. People were evicted from their homes in Catford for the section there. Subsequently those houses have been handed over to "more deserving?" people.
The problems at Bell Green arise purely and simply because of deliberate bad design and neglect of duty. For example why can not the road (Bell Green) outside Sainsbury's be widened to permit the two lanes either side which clearly are necessary? The land alongside is just waste ground.
I understand the original proposal included provision for widening the Southend Lane bridge. Unfortunately any proposal with the potential to ease congestion is frowned on by the flat earth brigade who prefer a "tax you until you squeak" approach.
Sydenham's traffic congestion is not insoluble. It is relatively easy to resolve. Where there is a will there is a way... hence this problem is unlikely to be resolved by those currently in "power".
What happened to the improved South Circular involving a six lane highway through Forest Hill? The land was bought. People were evicted from their homes in Catford for the section there. Subsequently those houses have been handed over to "more deserving?" people.
The problems at Bell Green arise purely and simply because of deliberate bad design and neglect of duty. For example why can not the road (Bell Green) outside Sainsbury's be widened to permit the two lanes either side which clearly are necessary? The land alongside is just waste ground.
So traffic problems are all just a question of good design, are they? Nothing to do with the ever-increasing volumes of traffic?
Your solution of revisting the idea of a six-lane highway through FH to solve the problem is simply dotty. Thank goodness you aren't in charge of road design.
I have to say that I've looked at your ideas for "improving" the area as listed in your recent postings with increasing incredulity. "Six-lane highways, "knock down all the shops in Sydenham Road" .
Come clean! This is a wind-up isn't it?
Your solution of revisting the idea of a six-lane highway through FH to solve the problem is simply dotty. Thank goodness you aren't in charge of road design.
I have to say that I've looked at your ideas for "improving" the area as listed in your recent postings with increasing incredulity. "Six-lane highways, "knock down all the shops in Sydenham Road" .
Come clean! This is a wind-up isn't it?
Traffic volumes have a great deal to do with it. Failing to build the infrastructure to cope even more. Those responsible bleat "our roads were not designed for the motor car". Really? but they have had well over 100 years to deal with that shortcoming. Minor improvements in a small number of places in Sydenham would easily alleviate the nightmare of stationery traffic belching out fumes as it sits there for hours. Dotty? Not so.nasaroc wrote:So traffic problems are all just a question of good design, are they? Nothing to do with the ever-increasing volumes of traffic?
How dotty? To relieve Sydenham Road of the rat-runners and to, at the same time, obliterate the ugliest part of South London? Two birds with one stone. Make it possible for ambulances and the fire service to attend properties locally... Is this dotty? In North London the circular road has been treated as a trunk route. In South London it has to do the job of a trunk route with the capability of a 19th Century horse-track.nasaroc wrote:Your solution of revisting the idea of a six-lane highway through FH to solve the problem is simply dotty. Thank goodness you aren't in charge of road design.
I suggest comprehension lessons would be in order. If you read, again, you will see I made a balanced argument containing a number of "ifs" and "buts" - some intended to be facetious. However the idea of demolishing the disgusting row of shanties that call themselves shops (in Sydenham Road) is by no means dotty. Sydenham Road is in desperate need of a major face-lift.nasaroc wrote: I have to say that I've looked at your ideas for "improving" the area as listed in your recent postings with increasing incredulity. "Six-lane highways, "knock down all the shops in Sydenham Road" .
No. Just plain common sense.nasaroc wrote: Come clean! This is a wind-up isn't it?
Despite Nasaroc's admonitions, I do think that Knighton has put forward some well thought out ideas.
The purpose of roads, self evidently, is to carry traffic. If roads cannot cope with existing traffic levels then, logically, the only solution is to build bigger and better roads.
The building of new roads would bring benefits going well beyond the immediate advantage of being able to drive through Sydenham without any stoppages. A major road programme in the area would generate much needed employment - although new jobs created would to some extent be off-set by Lollipop Lady redundancies. Rationally, there could be no place in the new roads for crossings for children. Similarly, zebra crossings would have to go since they really are a nuisance and prevent motorists from driving through Sydenham at a reasonable speed, by which I mean 70 mph.
That is why I agree with Knighton's persuasive argument that we should demolish all the shops on Sydenham Road, as a first step towards converting the road into an autobahn. Demolition could easily be carried out by an unannounced explosion at Saturday peak shopping period, which would have the benefit not only of producing a lot of rubble (hardcore for the autobahn?) but would also decimate the pensioners of Sydenham who, by definition, are opposed to progress.
And if Forest Hill, as Knighton so wisely suggests, is to have a six-lane highway, then surely Sydenham can do better. A 12 lane autobahn could easily be achieved if the residential roads either side of Sydenham Road were demolished. That too could be accomplished by an unannounced explosion - which would remove the troublesome need to consult.
The jewel in the crown would be a system of junctions on the 24 lane highway (it gets bigger and better as I think about it) that routed all departing traffic to a giant retail park at Bell Green.
Allez Knighton!
The purpose of roads, self evidently, is to carry traffic. If roads cannot cope with existing traffic levels then, logically, the only solution is to build bigger and better roads.
The building of new roads would bring benefits going well beyond the immediate advantage of being able to drive through Sydenham without any stoppages. A major road programme in the area would generate much needed employment - although new jobs created would to some extent be off-set by Lollipop Lady redundancies. Rationally, there could be no place in the new roads for crossings for children. Similarly, zebra crossings would have to go since they really are a nuisance and prevent motorists from driving through Sydenham at a reasonable speed, by which I mean 70 mph.
That is why I agree with Knighton's persuasive argument that we should demolish all the shops on Sydenham Road, as a first step towards converting the road into an autobahn. Demolition could easily be carried out by an unannounced explosion at Saturday peak shopping period, which would have the benefit not only of producing a lot of rubble (hardcore for the autobahn?) but would also decimate the pensioners of Sydenham who, by definition, are opposed to progress.
And if Forest Hill, as Knighton so wisely suggests, is to have a six-lane highway, then surely Sydenham can do better. A 12 lane autobahn could easily be achieved if the residential roads either side of Sydenham Road were demolished. That too could be accomplished by an unannounced explosion - which would remove the troublesome need to consult.
The jewel in the crown would be a system of junctions on the 24 lane highway (it gets bigger and better as I think about it) that routed all departing traffic to a giant retail park at Bell Green.
Allez Knighton!
Bryan
Have you ever thought of a career in politics -- or even better, dictatorship?
It's that kind of clear thinking that we need around here. But hey, why not go the whole hog. Forget about redeveloping Bell Green as a shopping centre. Let's just clear the whole area, turn into a parade-ground and we could hold rallies down there.
All hail King Brian.
Your loyal subject.
Have you ever thought of a career in politics -- or even better, dictatorship?
It's that kind of clear thinking that we need around here. But hey, why not go the whole hog. Forget about redeveloping Bell Green as a shopping centre. Let's just clear the whole area, turn into a parade-ground and we could hold rallies down there.
All hail King Brian.
Your loyal subject.
Maturin (no need to kneel)
What a terrific idea. Mass rallies at Bell Green - why didn't Knighton think of this?
I warm to the prospect of goose-stepping around the gasholders wearing a uniform. I can hear the cheering crowds now. We could have a mass rally every weekend with mini-mass rallies in between so that we can all get worked up into a great big frenzy before the weekend rally.
And this is where the brilliance of Knighton's thinking comes in. With a 52 lane autobahn (yes, it's getting bigger but no point in small scale thinking) thrusting its way through what's left of Sydenham we could shift the massed masses from Bell Green to Crystal Palace in less time than it takes to say achtung. The masses could then stampede around the Park for a couple of hours doing what masses do (sneering at the dinosaurs etc) before being whizzed back, via the autobahn of course, for a closing rally at Bell Green.
No point in having a rally without having something to rally about - for example, a campaign to rid ourselves of small shopkeepers (i.e. any retailer below 5' 3"). Further ideas welcomed but will be rejected. No point in being leader otherwise.
What a terrific idea. Mass rallies at Bell Green - why didn't Knighton think of this?
I warm to the prospect of goose-stepping around the gasholders wearing a uniform. I can hear the cheering crowds now. We could have a mass rally every weekend with mini-mass rallies in between so that we can all get worked up into a great big frenzy before the weekend rally.
And this is where the brilliance of Knighton's thinking comes in. With a 52 lane autobahn (yes, it's getting bigger but no point in small scale thinking) thrusting its way through what's left of Sydenham we could shift the massed masses from Bell Green to Crystal Palace in less time than it takes to say achtung. The masses could then stampede around the Park for a couple of hours doing what masses do (sneering at the dinosaurs etc) before being whizzed back, via the autobahn of course, for a closing rally at Bell Green.
No point in having a rally without having something to rally about - for example, a campaign to rid ourselves of small shopkeepers (i.e. any retailer below 5' 3"). Further ideas welcomed but will be rejected. No point in being leader otherwise.
or you could do exactly what Knighton proposed rather than a fatuous parody....
Build the already planned (at considerable cost) and approved road through Forest Hill which would remove the traffic from Sydenham Road. Redevelop Sydenham Road and provide some decent shops in what could, for the most part, be a pedestrian precinct.
The failure to build the road means that when it is resurected the issue of the three alternative routes could also be. This is possibly one reason why Sydenham property values have stagnated during a period when everywhere else property prices leapt. The lack of any real facilities is clearly another. The Crystal Palace redevelopment offered a chance of some decent cultural facilities on our doorstep - scrapped due to the flat earthers. There was a proposal for a multi-plex cinema at Bell Green... lost without trace.
Build the already planned (at considerable cost) and approved road through Forest Hill which would remove the traffic from Sydenham Road. Redevelop Sydenham Road and provide some decent shops in what could, for the most part, be a pedestrian precinct.
The failure to build the road means that when it is resurected the issue of the three alternative routes could also be. This is possibly one reason why Sydenham property values have stagnated during a period when everywhere else property prices leapt. The lack of any real facilities is clearly another. The Crystal Palace redevelopment offered a chance of some decent cultural facilities on our doorstep - scrapped due to the flat earthers. There was a proposal for a multi-plex cinema at Bell Green... lost without trace.
Knighton
I plead guilty to indulging in fatuous parody, which I thought was about the right level of response to the ideas you've so far posted.
Let's take one example - you say in one posting that you've only just heard of the proposed Bell Green development. I'm not critical of you for that, although I'm a little surprised that the press coverage of the proposals over the last 12 months appears to have passed you by.
What I am critical of is your readiness to express a view about the development proposals whilst remaining ignorant of their detail. (If you do have a grasp of the proposals then so far you have manged to disguise it very well). In your blessed state of ignorance you then go on to welcome the proposed Homebase since it means that you won't have to battle with the Southend Lane 'tunnel'. Hurrah. May I suggest that you do some homework and find out about the likely impact on traffic levels in the area should the proposals succeed. Then we can have a sensible discussion.
Better still, why not join the Sydenham Society which has long taken an informed and responsible interest in this and many other local matters. If you'd rather not join an organisation for which you haven't voted (another odd idea of yours) then you can go to the Sydenham Society website which will provide you with a much need tutorial on Bell Green. See their Statement of Case prepared for the forthcoming public inquiry.
I plead guilty to indulging in fatuous parody, which I thought was about the right level of response to the ideas you've so far posted.
Let's take one example - you say in one posting that you've only just heard of the proposed Bell Green development. I'm not critical of you for that, although I'm a little surprised that the press coverage of the proposals over the last 12 months appears to have passed you by.
What I am critical of is your readiness to express a view about the development proposals whilst remaining ignorant of their detail. (If you do have a grasp of the proposals then so far you have manged to disguise it very well). In your blessed state of ignorance you then go on to welcome the proposed Homebase since it means that you won't have to battle with the Southend Lane 'tunnel'. Hurrah. May I suggest that you do some homework and find out about the likely impact on traffic levels in the area should the proposals succeed. Then we can have a sensible discussion.
Better still, why not join the Sydenham Society which has long taken an informed and responsible interest in this and many other local matters. If you'd rather not join an organisation for which you haven't voted (another odd idea of yours) then you can go to the Sydenham Society website which will provide you with a much need tutorial on Bell Green. See their Statement of Case prepared for the forthcoming public inquiry.
Re: Hang on a minute
Okay, I'll rise to that. What part of this am I not reading 'carefully'?
Your great idea (1) to improve Sydenham is to remove these "shabby rundown shops." So the end result of this solution, would be, as I said, a road that no one would stop on. Hard to see how this is a solution to using Sydenham as a "rat run."Knighton wrote: Sydenham Road shops? Turn them all into residential accomodation. They provide few worthwhile facilities. Let's face it. There can only be half a dozen of those shabby run down shops that a discerning shopper would enter. All they do is detract from the appearance of the area and reduce property values.
Your great idea (2) to improve Sydenham is to demolish Sydenham. Echoes of the Vietnam war "we had to destroy the village in order to save it."Knighton wrote: On the other hand perhaps the better option would be to develop residential accomodation on the Bell Green site (coupled with Sivyer's yard) and to demolish Sydenham Road and build a decent shopping precinct surrounded by quality housing and green spaces. /quote]
If they are ugly and useless then replace them. That would leave one shop standing.
The shops provide no service. We just have a collection of the unsavoury, the dirty and the uneconomic and therefore ramshackle. Hence passers by (who are hell bent, in any case, on just escaping the traffic jam) are unlikely to stop to buy.
Who needs an endless row of greasy spoons especially when those spoons appear to have been dropped in the dirt? Who needs miniature banks with endless queues? Who needs so many hairdressers... few given the empty chairs they generally sport.
There is not a single decent butcher or greengrocer. There is only one men's clothing supplier which is very small and generally empty of shoppers. I bet the proprietor deeply regrets locating his smart looking operation amidst the clutter of shanty town Sydenham.
Not one of the pubs is worthy of a visit. They are cheerless and generally dirty holes providing no entertainment.... and yet one of them was London's first music hall! What other leisure facilities are there? Answers on a postcard please.
If some effort were made to attract the people who can walk to Sydenham Road there would be no need to persuade those passing through. The fact that the shops are complaining of a hard time is a reflection on their tatty, off-putting, shabby appearance and the irrelevence of the services they offer.
Yes remove the shabby shops and if nothing better is on offer then replace them with residential accomodation. If the S Circular Road had been improved, as promised, Sydenham Road could have been developed as a proper shopping centre. With through traffic removed the roads could have been devoted to serving Sydenham's needs rather than those of Bromley, Croydon and Lewisham.
The shops provide no service. We just have a collection of the unsavoury, the dirty and the uneconomic and therefore ramshackle. Hence passers by (who are hell bent, in any case, on just escaping the traffic jam) are unlikely to stop to buy.
Who needs an endless row of greasy spoons especially when those spoons appear to have been dropped in the dirt? Who needs miniature banks with endless queues? Who needs so many hairdressers... few given the empty chairs they generally sport.
There is not a single decent butcher or greengrocer. There is only one men's clothing supplier which is very small and generally empty of shoppers. I bet the proprietor deeply regrets locating his smart looking operation amidst the clutter of shanty town Sydenham.
Not one of the pubs is worthy of a visit. They are cheerless and generally dirty holes providing no entertainment.... and yet one of them was London's first music hall! What other leisure facilities are there? Answers on a postcard please.
If some effort were made to attract the people who can walk to Sydenham Road there would be no need to persuade those passing through. The fact that the shops are complaining of a hard time is a reflection on their tatty, off-putting, shabby appearance and the irrelevence of the services they offer.
Yes remove the shabby shops and if nothing better is on offer then replace them with residential accomodation. If the S Circular Road had been improved, as promised, Sydenham Road could have been developed as a proper shopping centre. With through traffic removed the roads could have been devoted to serving Sydenham's needs rather than those of Bromley, Croydon and Lewisham.