I disagree Annabel. The cold hard fact of the matter is that it was prime for development as everything could be purchased 'on the cheap'. It ticks alot of the boxes required for these type of things. The required road and rail infrastructure is already in place via the wide road network (being as polite as I can) nearby and various tributary roads allied to Lower Sydenham station, the majority of Sydenham residents don't seem to care about Bell Green either so whilst there was a degree of local resistance it was much more dilute than had it been, say, Wells Park.
I'm with you Annabel in that I really wish it was a calming enclave with housing similar to that of the Millennium Village in North and East Greenwich (not to mention the environmentally sound way they built the B&Q et al) but pure economics dictated that because of where it was this is the best possible outcome. Would you buy property there, in the middle of that traffic and with that vista to look out on? It's no coincidence that White City in W.London is suffering the same fate. Believe me, my degree is in Environmental Biology and I feel your hurt at what is being lost but I'm thanking my lucky stars it's not a JD Sports, KFC etc, etc.
Without being glib If I close my eyes really tightly I imagine Bell Green is a lake with mature oaks and I'm there feeding the swans whilst young families frolic in their environmentally sound houses and traffic is nary a far off gentle hiss - then I wake up and remember it's Bell Green and we've gotten away lightly, very lightly indeed. And, yes, I'm not a resident of Bell Green but I'm afraid these things are often dumped on the 'have nots'.
Bell Green Gasworks site
-
Pat Trembath
- Posts: 613
- Joined: 2 Oct 2004 10:54
You may think Sydenham has "gotten away very lightly, very lightly indeed", Greg and we know that you are shortly off to the Elysian Fields that form Upper Sydenham, fortunate enough to be able to turn your back on Lower Sydenham.
With your environmental qualifications you are aware that retail parks attract car users - if they didn't then why provide car parking for 1800 users? Heavy and bulky goods are not conveniently transported by public transport by their very nature.
Sydenham Road, Southend Lane, Perry Hill and Perry Rise are quite often at a standstill and additional cars attracted by a retail park at Bell Green will mean additional pollution and the slower the cars travel so exponentially the greater the increase of pollution, I believe.
It is predicted that the Bell Green development will mean an increase of 10% of cars in Sydenham Road at peak times, up to 13.5% in Perry Rise and 9.5% in Southend Lane and Perry Hill. Apart from Southend Lane because of the extremely low bridge, there will be additional heavy goods vehicles travelling through Sydenham servicing Bell Green.
At my end of Sydenham traffic backs way up Westwood Hill and Kirkdale. At Lower Sydenham there is always a queue to get through the rail bridge at Southend Lane and into Catford.
I will be very surprised if Sydenham gets away lightly when the retail park comes on stream
With your environmental qualifications you are aware that retail parks attract car users - if they didn't then why provide car parking for 1800 users? Heavy and bulky goods are not conveniently transported by public transport by their very nature.
Sydenham Road, Southend Lane, Perry Hill and Perry Rise are quite often at a standstill and additional cars attracted by a retail park at Bell Green will mean additional pollution and the slower the cars travel so exponentially the greater the increase of pollution, I believe.
It is predicted that the Bell Green development will mean an increase of 10% of cars in Sydenham Road at peak times, up to 13.5% in Perry Rise and 9.5% in Southend Lane and Perry Hill. Apart from Southend Lane because of the extremely low bridge, there will be additional heavy goods vehicles travelling through Sydenham servicing Bell Green.
At my end of Sydenham traffic backs way up Westwood Hill and Kirkdale. At Lower Sydenham there is always a queue to get through the rail bridge at Southend Lane and into Catford.
I will be very surprised if Sydenham gets away lightly when the retail park comes on stream
And another thing... a giant retail park is, according to Greg Whitehead, the best possible outcome. Really? I think that view is simply wrong-headed.
Of course the site had to be developed - the Sydenham Society has always strongly argued that. The site's neglect for almost a decade has been something of a minor scandal, so too the Council's failure to put any real pressure onto the landowners to bring the site back into productive use.
Others have pointed out the most probable consequences of the development that has now been approved. There was an alternative, and a realistic alternative - that of housing on the Phase 2 site. The Sydenham Society presented a detailed argument to that effect at the public inquiry.
Greg Whitehead asks who would want to live on the site? Well, presumably the same people who would want - according to the developers and the Council - to live on the housing development now approved for the Phase 3 site.
One question for Greg Whitehead - does he consider that the development now approved will give rise to an increase in road traffic? (And by the way I don't buy the argument that a housing development would give rise to a similar increase in traffic.)
Bryan Leslie
Of course the site had to be developed - the Sydenham Society has always strongly argued that. The site's neglect for almost a decade has been something of a minor scandal, so too the Council's failure to put any real pressure onto the landowners to bring the site back into productive use.
Others have pointed out the most probable consequences of the development that has now been approved. There was an alternative, and a realistic alternative - that of housing on the Phase 2 site. The Sydenham Society presented a detailed argument to that effect at the public inquiry.
Greg Whitehead asks who would want to live on the site? Well, presumably the same people who would want - according to the developers and the Council - to live on the housing development now approved for the Phase 3 site.
One question for Greg Whitehead - does he consider that the development now approved will give rise to an increase in road traffic? (And by the way I don't buy the argument that a housing development would give rise to a similar increase in traffic.)
Bryan Leslie
-
Greg Whitehead
- Posts: 474
- Joined: 11 Apr 2005 15:44
- Location: SE26 5RL
Allow me to qualify my comments Pat and Bryan. Before I begin I'd like to point out that I refer to I/we in the vernacular. I've been discussing the Bell Green proposal with a number of friends (yes, I do have some); some neighbours etc and we all feel the same. That, yes, thanks to this debacle we have, quite frankly, gotten away really rather lightly.
For those that don't want to read on allow me to use an internet parlance. Bell Green being redeveloped?...Meh.
I was bemused, confused and finally really rather amused by the content of the posts. Leaving aside any personal broadsides for the moment, in particular the Elysian Fields comment (I'll deal with that later in this post) I have to say I was disappointed but not surprised that your post was once again lacking in any substance Pat. All I ever seem to read is rumour and conjecture, all frightfully well-meaning but slightly powder-puff. Might we at any time in the future receive any hard facts and/or figures from SydSoc rather than constant laments and made-up numbers? Where exactly will the quoted % increase in traffic come from? Are we really going to have our intelligence insulted again by SydSoc when we're told that people with forgo their local Homebase in Catford and Penge in order to drive to Bell Green? £1,000,000 of trade (nice round figure there) will be lost from which shops exactly? Where exactly do we see trade being lost from on the High Street – is the retail park going to have a Currency Converter or some mega pound shop? Yes, I have read the posts and articles on the SS home page and on STF. There's no substance to your arguments. Why do I think we've gotten away quite lightly? Well here's some numbers that stack up to scrutiny and make for some damning reading.
At a rough estimate Sydenham has 20,000 residents. SydSoc prides itself on its 1,100 members, and quite rightly so (that said, only 0.55% of residents care about Sydenham – Hill/Upper/Lower - enough to join). How many of these 20,000 residents or 1,100 SydSoc members objected to the proposal? 132 (this equates to 0.0066%). News Shopper gives us the correct forum to raise awareness and build a groundswell of opinion via it's photo shoot and how many concerned Sydenham residents turn up? Well depending which photo' you scan between 12 and 15 – how many of those were local Bell Green residents? Given the amount of sunglasses on show in the pictures perhaps the other thousands of dissenting voices were off skipping in the 'meadow' (as Annabel so quaintly described it) chasing butterflies when the press came to visit...
Perhaps it symptomatic of a wider failing of SydSoc but there's the rub. One of SydSoc's abiding charters is "to promote public interest and civic pride". Putting it politely it's clear that the majority of local residents (whether they be Sydenham Hill, Upper Sydenham, Lower Sydenham or even, it would seem, Bell Green) couldn't give two hoots about the Bell Green development and that's why we'd have no-one to blame but ourselves if they decided to build a multiplex or Heaven forbid a prison. Frankly it's hard to see it any other way than the society in its current guise being really rather toothless, almost as if Castlemore told us to roll over and it'd stroke our bellies. I've yet to hear one realistic draft as to what the site should be. Annabel's suggestion for a meadow type affair is commendable but let's get real.
Perhaps some good will come from this exercise and we can step back and look at the current relative failure of the Sydenham Society (keeping the number of bookies on the High Street down to a mere three aside). I suggest we engender a debate as to the make-up (in terms of personalities) and activities of SydSoc currently. Perhaps Steve Grindlay ought to take a more prominent role? Having met the man he certainly has the gravitas, contacts and nature (in my opinion) to take a more 'front-office' role. It's not a personal attack on you Pat but the whole thing has been a rather abject failure; it cannot be dressed up any other way. It does seem as if SydSoc is dining out on the past glories of CPP in the 80's and SHW in the 90's? We (ALL Sydenham residents) need to take much more pride and positive action in our local area, not just relying on the SydSoc. I appreciate the extra traffic will be unwelcome but seeing as you cite a classic bell-curve logarithm or Gaussian distribution let me point out we're way beyond exponential growth so far as cars in the area goes.
As for turning my back on Lower Sydenham by moving from Knighton Park Road you might wish to hold grip the arm of your Winchester quite tightly at this point. The real reason (and this might be quite painful for some of Upper Sydenham's smarter residents) is that I cannot afford what I want in Lower Sydenham and have to move to Upper Sydenham/Sydenham Hill border to be able to afford it. Working from a comfortable 2.5x salary with savings and decent equity there's no way I can get a house in the streets that I want in Lower Sydenham. I prefer Lower Sydenham, simple as, and as far as I'm concerned the better streets are here (Trewsbury Road, the Thorpes etc are on a par and indeed best most of what Upper Sydenham has to offer). Not for me the privilege of being able to buy a large rambling house in the 70's for sixpence. TBH I am taking a bit of a step down in that I will be losing living space by moving up the hill, be further from the station and have much further to walk to the only decent shops in the area. I'm proud of Lower Sydenham and it's open spaces – I'll be gaining a view, nothing else.
I wonder how much more resistance the proposal would have met had it been for your beloved Wells Park or even Mayow Park/Sydenham Hill Woods. It's unforgivable that I and many thousands of others were so indifferent about the proposal but at least I'm honest in that my attitude stank, it was very much 'rather them than me' and for that reason if it is ONLY a TGI Friday (which does have it's positives particularly being family-friendly) then hurrah…
I'm sure I'll be censured for speaking out but we need to be more militant. This is a contaminated brown-field site that is being returned to use, we may not like what it will become but only have ourselves to blame that we didn't even raise a whimper and it's a soulless retail park.
For those that don't want to read on allow me to use an internet parlance. Bell Green being redeveloped?...Meh.
I was bemused, confused and finally really rather amused by the content of the posts. Leaving aside any personal broadsides for the moment, in particular the Elysian Fields comment (I'll deal with that later in this post) I have to say I was disappointed but not surprised that your post was once again lacking in any substance Pat. All I ever seem to read is rumour and conjecture, all frightfully well-meaning but slightly powder-puff. Might we at any time in the future receive any hard facts and/or figures from SydSoc rather than constant laments and made-up numbers? Where exactly will the quoted % increase in traffic come from? Are we really going to have our intelligence insulted again by SydSoc when we're told that people with forgo their local Homebase in Catford and Penge in order to drive to Bell Green? £1,000,000 of trade (nice round figure there) will be lost from which shops exactly? Where exactly do we see trade being lost from on the High Street – is the retail park going to have a Currency Converter or some mega pound shop? Yes, I have read the posts and articles on the SS home page and on STF. There's no substance to your arguments. Why do I think we've gotten away quite lightly? Well here's some numbers that stack up to scrutiny and make for some damning reading.
At a rough estimate Sydenham has 20,000 residents. SydSoc prides itself on its 1,100 members, and quite rightly so (that said, only 0.55% of residents care about Sydenham – Hill/Upper/Lower - enough to join). How many of these 20,000 residents or 1,100 SydSoc members objected to the proposal? 132 (this equates to 0.0066%). News Shopper gives us the correct forum to raise awareness and build a groundswell of opinion via it's photo shoot and how many concerned Sydenham residents turn up? Well depending which photo' you scan between 12 and 15 – how many of those were local Bell Green residents? Given the amount of sunglasses on show in the pictures perhaps the other thousands of dissenting voices were off skipping in the 'meadow' (as Annabel so quaintly described it) chasing butterflies when the press came to visit...
Perhaps it symptomatic of a wider failing of SydSoc but there's the rub. One of SydSoc's abiding charters is "to promote public interest and civic pride". Putting it politely it's clear that the majority of local residents (whether they be Sydenham Hill, Upper Sydenham, Lower Sydenham or even, it would seem, Bell Green) couldn't give two hoots about the Bell Green development and that's why we'd have no-one to blame but ourselves if they decided to build a multiplex or Heaven forbid a prison. Frankly it's hard to see it any other way than the society in its current guise being really rather toothless, almost as if Castlemore told us to roll over and it'd stroke our bellies. I've yet to hear one realistic draft as to what the site should be. Annabel's suggestion for a meadow type affair is commendable but let's get real.
Perhaps some good will come from this exercise and we can step back and look at the current relative failure of the Sydenham Society (keeping the number of bookies on the High Street down to a mere three aside). I suggest we engender a debate as to the make-up (in terms of personalities) and activities of SydSoc currently. Perhaps Steve Grindlay ought to take a more prominent role? Having met the man he certainly has the gravitas, contacts and nature (in my opinion) to take a more 'front-office' role. It's not a personal attack on you Pat but the whole thing has been a rather abject failure; it cannot be dressed up any other way. It does seem as if SydSoc is dining out on the past glories of CPP in the 80's and SHW in the 90's? We (ALL Sydenham residents) need to take much more pride and positive action in our local area, not just relying on the SydSoc. I appreciate the extra traffic will be unwelcome but seeing as you cite a classic bell-curve logarithm or Gaussian distribution let me point out we're way beyond exponential growth so far as cars in the area goes.
As for turning my back on Lower Sydenham by moving from Knighton Park Road you might wish to hold grip the arm of your Winchester quite tightly at this point. The real reason (and this might be quite painful for some of Upper Sydenham's smarter residents) is that I cannot afford what I want in Lower Sydenham and have to move to Upper Sydenham/Sydenham Hill border to be able to afford it. Working from a comfortable 2.5x salary with savings and decent equity there's no way I can get a house in the streets that I want in Lower Sydenham. I prefer Lower Sydenham, simple as, and as far as I'm concerned the better streets are here (Trewsbury Road, the Thorpes etc are on a par and indeed best most of what Upper Sydenham has to offer). Not for me the privilege of being able to buy a large rambling house in the 70's for sixpence. TBH I am taking a bit of a step down in that I will be losing living space by moving up the hill, be further from the station and have much further to walk to the only decent shops in the area. I'm proud of Lower Sydenham and it's open spaces – I'll be gaining a view, nothing else.
I wonder how much more resistance the proposal would have met had it been for your beloved Wells Park or even Mayow Park/Sydenham Hill Woods. It's unforgivable that I and many thousands of others were so indifferent about the proposal but at least I'm honest in that my attitude stank, it was very much 'rather them than me' and for that reason if it is ONLY a TGI Friday (which does have it's positives particularly being family-friendly) then hurrah…
I'm sure I'll be censured for speaking out but we need to be more militant. This is a contaminated brown-field site that is being returned to use, we may not like what it will become but only have ourselves to blame that we didn't even raise a whimper and it's a soulless retail park.
-
Pat Trembath
- Posts: 613
- Joined: 2 Oct 2004 10:54
I have read Greg's post with some bemusement and will pick out a few points to clarify some facts about the Sydenham Society's involvement in the objections to Bell Green to the extent of taking part in two public inquiries over the past 4 years.
Quoted percentage increases in traffic came from Savell Bird and Axon's (consultants to British Gas agents) report Traffic and Transport and therefore likely to be on the conservative side.
Figures of trade draw from local high streets - in fact these are £.5m from Sydenham, similar form Forest Hill and £2m from Catford from report by retail consultants by Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners commisssioned by Lewisham Council.
So, yes, there were in the end about 150 letters of objections, but only 9 received by Lewisham were in favour - so?
The Sydenham Society's members donated £5000 towards our legal costs which I would suggest give a measure of support to the Society's stance from within its membership.
Regarding alternative suggestions for development. since 1995 the Sydenham Society has been trying to persuade the council to redevelop this site for industry (after all that was its original usage) and for high quality jobs. Our Statement of Case on our website refers to these alternatives. Since nowadays there are methods of building housing on contaminated land we have over the past two years also put this idea forward as an alternative.
With regard to a general suggestion that the Sydenham Society is living in the past I would say look out for a major consultation beginning within the next 4/5 weeks - 5000 leaflets will go into houses within 5 minutes walk of Sydenham Road asking residents about ideas for improvements to the walkability of Sydenham. A further 5000 leaflets will be available in the Library, local shops and the Post Office - giving anyone interested in the future of Sydenham an opporuinity to have their say.
This has come about from suggestions from the Sydenham Society put to the council in 2004 for possible ways of improving Sydenham Gateway see Sydenham Town or the Sydenham Society website for our original ideas from which this consultation started. These ideas were worked up by Lewisham Council into a successful funding bid to Transport for London.
I have no doubt that Admin will be running this on the Home page of Sydenham Town shortly as he and I together with Steve Grindlay (Sydenham Society Executive member) and Geraldine Cox (Kirkdale Bookshop) have been meeting with a representative of Living Streets who will be doing the audit to discuss process.
Regarding our beloved Wells Park and Sydenham Hill Woods - how about opposing successfully the building of 18 houses within Wells Park in 1994? Or how about taking part in two public inquiries in the mid-1980's to stop Dulwich Estate Governors trying to build on Sydenham Hill Woods. The Society's opposition to housing on Kirkdale Green and Albion Millennium Green (I think Greg discovered this gem recently) has also been successful.
I dont propose to apologise any further for the existence of the Sydenham Society.
Quoted percentage increases in traffic came from Savell Bird and Axon's (consultants to British Gas agents) report Traffic and Transport and therefore likely to be on the conservative side.
Figures of trade draw from local high streets - in fact these are £.5m from Sydenham, similar form Forest Hill and £2m from Catford from report by retail consultants by Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners commisssioned by Lewisham Council.
So, yes, there were in the end about 150 letters of objections, but only 9 received by Lewisham were in favour - so?
The Sydenham Society's members donated £5000 towards our legal costs which I would suggest give a measure of support to the Society's stance from within its membership.
Regarding alternative suggestions for development. since 1995 the Sydenham Society has been trying to persuade the council to redevelop this site for industry (after all that was its original usage) and for high quality jobs. Our Statement of Case on our website refers to these alternatives. Since nowadays there are methods of building housing on contaminated land we have over the past two years also put this idea forward as an alternative.
With regard to a general suggestion that the Sydenham Society is living in the past I would say look out for a major consultation beginning within the next 4/5 weeks - 5000 leaflets will go into houses within 5 minutes walk of Sydenham Road asking residents about ideas for improvements to the walkability of Sydenham. A further 5000 leaflets will be available in the Library, local shops and the Post Office - giving anyone interested in the future of Sydenham an opporuinity to have their say.
This has come about from suggestions from the Sydenham Society put to the council in 2004 for possible ways of improving Sydenham Gateway see Sydenham Town or the Sydenham Society website for our original ideas from which this consultation started. These ideas were worked up by Lewisham Council into a successful funding bid to Transport for London.
I have no doubt that Admin will be running this on the Home page of Sydenham Town shortly as he and I together with Steve Grindlay (Sydenham Society Executive member) and Geraldine Cox (Kirkdale Bookshop) have been meeting with a representative of Living Streets who will be doing the audit to discuss process.
Regarding our beloved Wells Park and Sydenham Hill Woods - how about opposing successfully the building of 18 houses within Wells Park in 1994? Or how about taking part in two public inquiries in the mid-1980's to stop Dulwich Estate Governors trying to build on Sydenham Hill Woods. The Society's opposition to housing on Kirkdale Green and Albion Millennium Green (I think Greg discovered this gem recently) has also been successful.
I dont propose to apologise any further for the existence of the Sydenham Society.
Greg Whitehead's comments are confused and confusing. And if he wants me to justify that criticism in greater detail then I will. First though, I'd appreciate a reply to my earlier question to him - does he consider that the development now agreed at Bell Green will result in an increase in road traffic in the area.
Bryan Leslie
Bryan Leslie
Greg
You seem to contradict yourself a lot. In a previous post you describe yourself as moving to 'an even nicer area' up the hill. Now you're saying you prefer lower syd. You told me you were moving up the hill because you thought it was a safer area.
Was it really so unrealistic to hope that some of the Bell Green area at least might have been reserved for a park or wildlife habitiat? It seems that the Sydenham Societies proposal for more residential use would be the obvious choice since its is universally acknowledged that there is a massive housing shortage.
Ok so maybe more people should have kicked up a fuss at the time rather than lament a lost cause but to attack people who have spent a great deal of time and effort on the cause for the inaction of the rest of the population is ridiculous. I blame Ruth Kelly - I have always despised her and now I know why.
However I agree its not all necessarily negative and that the shops on the high street could be encouraged to become more specialist and provide the type of goods and service that huge stores like Homebase/TGIs etc can never fill. Maybe they need to change with the times to provide what the changing population of the area actually want to buy.
You seem to contradict yourself a lot. In a previous post you describe yourself as moving to 'an even nicer area' up the hill. Now you're saying you prefer lower syd. You told me you were moving up the hill because you thought it was a safer area.
Was it really so unrealistic to hope that some of the Bell Green area at least might have been reserved for a park or wildlife habitiat? It seems that the Sydenham Societies proposal for more residential use would be the obvious choice since its is universally acknowledged that there is a massive housing shortage.
Ok so maybe more people should have kicked up a fuss at the time rather than lament a lost cause but to attack people who have spent a great deal of time and effort on the cause for the inaction of the rest of the population is ridiculous. I blame Ruth Kelly - I have always despised her and now I know why.
However I agree its not all necessarily negative and that the shops on the high street could be encouraged to become more specialist and provide the type of goods and service that huge stores like Homebase/TGIs etc can never fill. Maybe they need to change with the times to provide what the changing population of the area actually want to buy.
-
Greg Whitehead
- Posts: 474
- Joined: 11 Apr 2005 15:44
- Location: SE26 5RL
I think you'll find Julwz my actual words to you were that I loved the street I was on and many in the immediate area but no, I didn't feel overly safe walking down the High Street late at night, especially past some of the pubs. Please, don't put words into my mouth.Juwlz wrote:Greg
You seem to contradict yourself a lot. In a previous post you describe yourself as moving to 'an even nicer area' up the hill. Now you're saying you prefer lower syd. You told me you were moving up the hill because you thought it was a safer area.
Was it really so unrealistic to hope that some of the Bell Green area at least might have been reserved for a park or wildlife habitiat? It seems that the Sydenham Societies proposal for more residential use would be the obvious choice since its is universally acknowledged that there is a massive housing shortage.
Ok so maybe more people should have kicked up a fuss at the time rather than lament a lost cause but to attack people who have spent a great deal of time and effort on the cause for the inaction of the rest of the population is ridiculous. I blame Ruth Kelly - I have always despised her and now I know why.
However I agree its not all necessarily negative and that the shops on the high street could be encouraged to become more specialist and provide the type of goods and service that huge stores like Homebase/TGIs etc can never fill. Maybe they need to change with the times to provide what the changing population of the area actually want to buy.
Sorry Greg, I shouldn't have put the inverted commas on - it made it look like I was directly quoting you - I was partly referring to an old post of yours, which I couldn't be bothered to look up at the time but here it is
I suppose 'well-heeled' isn't as subjective as 'nicer' so I'll take it back,Greg Whitehead wrote: The area in which I live in Sydenham is beautiful as is the surrounding area and I'm moving to an even more well-heeled area right at the top of the hill once my purchase is complete! )
-
Greg Whitehead
- Posts: 474
- Joined: 11 Apr 2005 15:44
- Location: SE26 5RL
Ah, the expected replies. How saddening that I had successfully second-guessed your posts prior to actually reading them..truly truly saddening and indicative of the current malaise regarding the SydSoc and of Sydenham residents in general.
Firstly, for you Bryan, of course. What a silly question. A retail park in our area will naturally bring unwelcome extra traffic onto the surrounding streets. I really didn't think your question had anything within it that warranted answering nor that hadn't been answered before. If you ever cared to read and understand the posts of others then it would be crystal clear that my thinking is very much that if out of ~20,000 residents only ~12 could be bothered enough to give a public show of support (nay, resistance) when given the opportunity then we're getting exactly what we deserve. I'd hazard that yourself and Pat were two of the ~12 in the photographs (if not, why not?). If so, we're truly going from the sublime to the ridiculous.
I note with interest you only post when the thread relates to Bell Green. The last objecting voice on this forum you and your cozy little band tried to shout down (yourself, Paddy Pantsdown et al) was Knighton and whilst I think he went too far he did raise some interesting points about the current inability of the SydSoc representatives to form any level of interest on any matter within the local community and indeed more importantly the inability of the Sydenham residents themselves to care about matters such as the state of the High Street. Well I'm afraid I'm here for the long term my dear boy. I still await anything constructive from your good self other than the offer to mark my homework.
Here are a few questions for you Bryan. If my post is confused and confusing what on earth have you added to this or any debate? You seem to just post rhetorical question after rhetorical question without adding anything based on sound reason or fact. What exactly are you after? You seem very interested (in fact only interested) in currying favour with Pat Trembath - is there anything we should know in that department? In short, what's your story Bryan?
I heartily applaud the role of the SydSoc and would not for one minute suggest that you or anyone need apologise for its existence Pat. I (amongst a good few others but I am speaking only for myself here), however, do believe it lacks direction and support currently. As previous, we need to engender the debate regarding SydSoc and why so few people were able to muster themselves to walk down the hill or down the road to Bell Green to protest. I'm shocked at the metaphorical shrugging of shoulders from you with regard the paltry number of letters of objection to the proposal. If the 132 letters of objection were only from members of SydSoc then even that in itself is a very poor return. This debate should ascertain whether or not the current leadership is attaining the required results. Given how successful Steve is at getting high levels of interest in local history just by posting a few pictures on this forum, thereby embellishing 'civic pride' then he may not care for me recommending this nor may he harbour any interest in the post but I'd wager Steve would make a very successful and engaging Chair.
Let me be clear, I am not personally attacking you Pat. I am suggesting that you potentially need help; I note that you have been described as 'battling' by this very website and you're certainly that. Nobody can question your passion but you may well feel as if you're fighting a lone battle though and may need help? I don't know. There may be many reasons for it but if the last REAL success stories for SydSoc (examples cited by you Pat) were back in the mid-80's and 1994 then things need to change. At present the view (in some/many quarters but not all) seems to be that the SydSoc is a committee to be broached/approached and involved but by and large to be ignored. Ask ourselves the question what we have really, I mean really, achieved by taking part in the public inquiry and how many local homeowners when all said and done gave/give a s%*t.
This involves all of us who care about Sydenham. No longer can we sit by tutting about the building of Bell Green Retail Park and do nothing when given the opportunity. I'm not suggesting picketing and chaining ourselves to trees but some vociferous support and something to make planners and developers think twice wouldn't go amiss. Are we (Sydenham residents) seen as a soft-touch currently? We shouldn't run from debate nor react badly to suggestions that SydSoc needs to change.
I sit suitably chastened and humbled by you Pat when I wrongfully suggested the figures were made up – that was a cheap and ill-informed shot, I just couldn't find the data for those figures either on STF or SydSoc's site but perhaps didn't look hard enough if they're there.
Firstly, for you Bryan, of course. What a silly question. A retail park in our area will naturally bring unwelcome extra traffic onto the surrounding streets. I really didn't think your question had anything within it that warranted answering nor that hadn't been answered before. If you ever cared to read and understand the posts of others then it would be crystal clear that my thinking is very much that if out of ~20,000 residents only ~12 could be bothered enough to give a public show of support (nay, resistance) when given the opportunity then we're getting exactly what we deserve. I'd hazard that yourself and Pat were two of the ~12 in the photographs (if not, why not?). If so, we're truly going from the sublime to the ridiculous.
I note with interest you only post when the thread relates to Bell Green. The last objecting voice on this forum you and your cozy little band tried to shout down (yourself, Paddy Pantsdown et al) was Knighton and whilst I think he went too far he did raise some interesting points about the current inability of the SydSoc representatives to form any level of interest on any matter within the local community and indeed more importantly the inability of the Sydenham residents themselves to care about matters such as the state of the High Street. Well I'm afraid I'm here for the long term my dear boy. I still await anything constructive from your good self other than the offer to mark my homework.
Here are a few questions for you Bryan. If my post is confused and confusing what on earth have you added to this or any debate? You seem to just post rhetorical question after rhetorical question without adding anything based on sound reason or fact. What exactly are you after? You seem very interested (in fact only interested) in currying favour with Pat Trembath - is there anything we should know in that department? In short, what's your story Bryan?
I heartily applaud the role of the SydSoc and would not for one minute suggest that you or anyone need apologise for its existence Pat. I (amongst a good few others but I am speaking only for myself here), however, do believe it lacks direction and support currently. As previous, we need to engender the debate regarding SydSoc and why so few people were able to muster themselves to walk down the hill or down the road to Bell Green to protest. I'm shocked at the metaphorical shrugging of shoulders from you with regard the paltry number of letters of objection to the proposal. If the 132 letters of objection were only from members of SydSoc then even that in itself is a very poor return. This debate should ascertain whether or not the current leadership is attaining the required results. Given how successful Steve is at getting high levels of interest in local history just by posting a few pictures on this forum, thereby embellishing 'civic pride' then he may not care for me recommending this nor may he harbour any interest in the post but I'd wager Steve would make a very successful and engaging Chair.
Let me be clear, I am not personally attacking you Pat. I am suggesting that you potentially need help; I note that you have been described as 'battling' by this very website and you're certainly that. Nobody can question your passion but you may well feel as if you're fighting a lone battle though and may need help? I don't know. There may be many reasons for it but if the last REAL success stories for SydSoc (examples cited by you Pat) were back in the mid-80's and 1994 then things need to change. At present the view (in some/many quarters but not all) seems to be that the SydSoc is a committee to be broached/approached and involved but by and large to be ignored. Ask ourselves the question what we have really, I mean really, achieved by taking part in the public inquiry and how many local homeowners when all said and done gave/give a s%*t.
This involves all of us who care about Sydenham. No longer can we sit by tutting about the building of Bell Green Retail Park and do nothing when given the opportunity. I'm not suggesting picketing and chaining ourselves to trees but some vociferous support and something to make planners and developers think twice wouldn't go amiss. Are we (Sydenham residents) seen as a soft-touch currently? We shouldn't run from debate nor react badly to suggestions that SydSoc needs to change.
I sit suitably chastened and humbled by you Pat when I wrongfully suggested the figures were made up – that was a cheap and ill-informed shot, I just couldn't find the data for those figures either on STF or SydSoc's site but perhaps didn't look hard enough if they're there.
-
Greg Whitehead
- Posts: 474
- Joined: 11 Apr 2005 15:44
- Location: SE26 5RL
True, muddled thinking, as always from me. Sorry from me too. Your Halloween adventure did look a hoot ! (No pun intended)Juwlz wrote:Sorry Greg, I shouldn't have put the inverted commas on - it made it look like I was directly quoting you - I was partly referring to an old post of yours, which I couldn't be bothered to look up at the time but here it is
I suppose 'well-heeled' isn't as subjective as 'nicer' so I'll take it back,Greg Whitehead wrote: The area in which I live in Sydenham is beautiful as is the surrounding area and I'm moving to an even more well-heeled area right at the top of the hill once my purchase is complete! )
Greg - the membership of the Sydenham Society is approx 1,100 members; the population of the area is approx 20,000 people. That's 5.5% of the local population that are members of the Sydenham Society NOT 0.55%. Get your sums right!
I only post on this site because I believe it may result in locals actually doing something about their problems in the real world not in cyberspace. So when are you going to turn this torrent of ideas and enthusiasm into some action?
To date, your record isn't strong. You warble on enthusiastically about the history of the area but fail to turn up at two historic walks as promised; you express anger at proposed cuts in train timetables, claim on the site that you are going to attend a meeting about these at the Town Hall, and then, surprise, surprise, don't show on the night.
It's easy to get caught up in numbers: only a tiny minority are really willing to put up with the boring, time-consuming and often ineffectual work which leads to gradual change in our locality. Many more are willing to pontificate on local websites without ever in their lives doing something about the issues they claim to feel so strongly about.
Which one of these two types are you? Looks increasingly like the latter to me.
I only post on this site because I believe it may result in locals actually doing something about their problems in the real world not in cyberspace. So when are you going to turn this torrent of ideas and enthusiasm into some action?
To date, your record isn't strong. You warble on enthusiastically about the history of the area but fail to turn up at two historic walks as promised; you express anger at proposed cuts in train timetables, claim on the site that you are going to attend a meeting about these at the Town Hall, and then, surprise, surprise, don't show on the night.
It's easy to get caught up in numbers: only a tiny minority are really willing to put up with the boring, time-consuming and often ineffectual work which leads to gradual change in our locality. Many more are willing to pontificate on local websites without ever in their lives doing something about the issues they claim to feel so strongly about.
Which one of these two types are you? Looks increasingly like the latter to me.
-
castiron73
- Posts: 132
- Joined: 24 Oct 2006 10:05
- Location: Sydenham Thorpes
There's a certain inevitablity about the commercial centre moving from up the hill, to where it is now, to a retail park at the bottom. But there's no need for the high street to die. We had the same thing happen in Kensal Green where we used to live and East Dulwich has the Sainsbury's in Dog Kennel Hill. You just have to specialise in high quality products and services. We have better architecture in Sydenham than in Lordship Lane.
But perhaps the incoming population is more about young families than young urbanites. Having dozens of new bars alternating with trinket shops wouldn't work so well here. I hope the Dolphin is going to be more Crown & Greyhound and welcome families, especially with that huge garden. To be honest, I think the mix is pretty good already and it will get better as the traders cotton on. My kids had a fantastic time on Halloween getting treats from all the shops. More of the same please!
But perhaps the incoming population is more about young families than young urbanites. Having dozens of new bars alternating with trinket shops wouldn't work so well here. I hope the Dolphin is going to be more Crown & Greyhound and welcome families, especially with that huge garden. To be honest, I think the mix is pretty good already and it will get better as the traders cotton on. My kids had a fantastic time on Halloween getting treats from all the shops. More of the same please!
-
Greg Whitehead
- Posts: 474
- Joined: 11 Apr 2005 15:44
- Location: SE26 5RL
Guilty as charged. I had noticed I needed to move the decimal point on a few of figures, it's shoddy on my behalf. I'd be slightly careful though Nasaroc as I include you in Bryan's cosy little previous 'clan' I mention earlier but unlike yourself and others I'll hold judgement for now.nasaroc wrote:Greg - the membership of the Sydenham Society is approx 1,100 members; the population of the area is approx 20,000 people. That's 5.5% of the local population that are members of the Sydenham Society NOT 0.55%. Get your sums right!
I only post on this site because I believe it may result in locals actually doing something about their problems in the real world not in cyberspace. So when are you going to turn this torrent of ideas and enthusiasm into some action?
To date, your record isn't strong. You warble on enthusiastically about the history of the area but fail to turn up at two historic walks as promised; you express anger at proposed cuts in train timetables, claim on the site that you are going to attend a meeting about these at the Town Hall, and then, surprise, surprise, don't show on the night.
It's easy to get caught up in numbers: only a tiny minority are really willing to put up with the boring, time-consuming and often ineffectual work which leads to gradual change in our locality. Many more are willing to pontificate on local websites without ever in their lives doing something about the issues they claim to feel so strongly about.
Which one of these two types are you? Looks increasingly like the latter to me.
Moving on, these 'historic walks' you refer to - these would be the same historic walks I was pivotal (to put it mildly) in arranging and attended the largest one to date? In terms of getting my sums right you'd do well to do the same. I missed one historic walk due to the weather - any others were not confirmed attendances and included only Falkor and Juwlz. In fact there have been but two to date. Perhaps as importantly what on earth has it to do with you? - I haven't seen your picture in ANY of these gatherings (Juwlz and Falkor's impromptu ones or otherwise). Yet your quite happy to sit in judgement of others?
As for the Town Hall meeting. It was eventually explained that this was a closed discussion that did not offer Q&A nor welcomed any input or debate from the floor. Turning up would have been merely ticking the boxes. Some more hot air whereby we would have been 'involved' to make us feel good but would have had no sway and frankly been ignored. I'm happy to help and get invloved Nasaroc if people wish but that meeting was IMO opinion pointless. That said, I ought to have posted non-attendance as (if memory serves) Fishcox did and you're right to hold me to task for that.
Who's next - has Bryan called Paddy Pantsdown to have a go?
Bell Green
Not wishing this subject to become the 'lets argue with Greg' thread, but I don't think the syd socs objections were raised in oder to instigate damage limitation. Their objections were raised in order to provoke some thought into the project , rather tham a 'sod it, that'll do' approach adopted by the developers of the site. Ultimately, it didn't work, and the wheels of progress still keep moving in an unrelenting fashion.
Unfortunately, what couldn't be taken into consideration the the PI, was what Homebase now propose for their Catford and Penge branches. I would suggest that these will suffer a fall in revenue until they become uneconomical -and close. Thus depriving residents of options and moving all potential consumers to a central outlet....Bell Green (as long as you have a car)
We could all roll over and just expect changes to be enforced on us, but I think the syd soc did a fine job in representing 'some' local views and concerns. It is just a pity that the planning framework is so rigid and static that it allows developers the upper hand in most contentious issues.
I don't think the syd soc were fighting for fightings sake, I think they had several intelligent arguments to be put, to try an inject some thought. Unfortunately, people don't want to think too hard,......and the easy option,....is just that
When it all goes belly up, there will be a tinge of gloating, 'we told you so'. But ultimate sadness at what could have been........
Unfortunately, what couldn't be taken into consideration the the PI, was what Homebase now propose for their Catford and Penge branches. I would suggest that these will suffer a fall in revenue until they become uneconomical -and close. Thus depriving residents of options and moving all potential consumers to a central outlet....Bell Green (as long as you have a car)
We could all roll over and just expect changes to be enforced on us, but I think the syd soc did a fine job in representing 'some' local views and concerns. It is just a pity that the planning framework is so rigid and static that it allows developers the upper hand in most contentious issues.
I don't think the syd soc were fighting for fightings sake, I think they had several intelligent arguments to be put, to try an inject some thought. Unfortunately, people don't want to think too hard,......and the easy option,....is just that
When it all goes belly up, there will be a tinge of gloating, 'we told you so'. But ultimate sadness at what could have been........
Thus depriving residents of options and moving all potential consumers to a central outlet....Bell Green (as long as you have a car)
*i must interject here,bell green for me as a pedestrian and bus user is a much better option than penge[or catford],there is a direct bus route[202]to where i live,i dont much fancy carrying my goods from the 176 bus stop in kirkdale to my house!
as ive said before,im looking forward to the new shops.
*i must interject here,bell green for me as a pedestrian and bus user is a much better option than penge[or catford],there is a direct bus route[202]to where i live,i dont much fancy carrying my goods from the 176 bus stop in kirkdale to my house!
as ive said before,im looking forward to the new shops.
cast iron
I am much in agreement with your comments. Also - great to hear that the Sydenham high st trick or treat event was a success.As a new(ish) resident I had my trick or treat goodies prepared and was delighted with the high turn-out of delightful trick-or-treat youngsters. In fact I ran out of treats!
When I used to live in East Dulwich I was always disapointed with the low turnout. Glad to see the community spirit is alive and kicking here!
I am much in agreement with your comments. Also - great to hear that the Sydenham high st trick or treat event was a success.As a new(ish) resident I had my trick or treat goodies prepared and was delighted with the high turn-out of delightful trick-or-treat youngsters. In fact I ran out of treats!
When I used to live in East Dulwich I was always disapointed with the low turnout. Glad to see the community spirit is alive and kicking here!
Ref: posting by leaf. Yes i would agree that getting to Bell Green might seem an easier option from Kikdale (by bus). However, this doesn't take into account the resultant increased traffic levels at the pinch points in the area.(Cobbs Corner being a case in point) Though the delay may not prove as problematic as getting your kitchen units/shelving/other flat packs onto public transport. Ohh well, it's done now, I'll just hope for the best
