Kirkdale Masterplan

[Tim Lund]

More on the interesting piece in the current Sydenham Society newsletter by Mary, which is mainly about the need for a master plan for Kirkdale, blighted as it is currently by some pretty dreadful development, and unsympathetic roof lines.



How should a plan reconcile these roof lines? Will it mean the lower ones rising, or the higher ones coming down? In any master plan for Kirkdale, will there be any numbers given for housing densities?

[Annie.]

It would be better if they went up,that way more housing above and it would also smarten up the parade by all being level, just my opinion.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Eagle]

i have many times wondered how these building ever got permission to be built. Look more 3rd world than SE26

[Annie.]

They do look terrible,even more so when in a photo like that,
I hadn t really taken all that much notice before.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[hairybuddha]

Could someone share a link to the article?

[Tim Lund]

Not yet on line - only up to Spring this year, so far.

As remarked previously, the point is that if you want to be involved in the discussions that matter, you need, like Mary, to be active in SydSoc.

But since you asked nicely, here you go




I'm struggling with getting OCR to work, ATM

[leenewham]

The new developments are nasty. I remember Kirdale in the early 90's and thought it felt like a village and was rather posh (sorry Mary, I don't get the Working class vibe about Kirkdale's shops and never have aside from the pubs).

I think sort of sums it up.

There is a case for strong shop guidelines that are locally controlled rather than through the council.

[Tim Lund]

There may be an opportunity to be included in developing ideas about the future of Kirkdale, since on the current SEE3 thread:

We then formed four groups to discuss priorities for the Action Groups meeting in September. If you are interested in joining the Action Groups then please turn up at Forest Hill Pools from 7.30 - 9pm on Tuesday evenings and I have put the dates next to each group.

- Neighbouhood Planning on Tuesday 3 September

...

The Neighbourhood Planning Action Group have already had a discussion led by members of the Forest Hill and Sydenham Societies as we want to make sure we are inclusive and working in collaboration with existing local organisations.

but clearly you will need to be led by experienced members of the Forest Hill and Sydenham Societies, such as Mary or perhaps Michael.

[hairybuddha]

Thanks Tim - The pictures aren't pulling through on my office computer so I'll have a look later.

As remarked previously, the point is that if you want to be involved in the discussions that matter, you need, like Mary, to be active in SydSoc.

Er, no, thanks. If SydSoc wants to be truly wide ranging and representative then it shouldn't be charging people to get involved.

[Tim Lund]

Er, no, thanks. If SydSoc wants to be truly wide ranging and representative then it shouldn't be charging people to get involved.

But that's what Chris Best understands by being inclusive, and on the matter of the abolition of the Amenity Society Panel, it's they who are standing up for democracy!

[marymck]

SydSoc does not charge people to "get involved".

SydSoc membership is £6 per year. There are more details on what that covers on the SydSoc website.

The four action groups that will be meeting at Forest Hill pools, of which neighbourhood planning is one, are - as clearly stated by Chris Best in her summing up of the recent see3 meeting - open to all who want to play an active part.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[hairybuddha]

SydSoc membership is £6 per year. There are more details on what that covers on the SydSoc website.

I can't find anything other than "access to a National Trust property". And it's £6.50.

Anyway, my point is I see absoutely no benefit in signing up to or getting involved with SydSoc. Though I'm sure they do marvellous work on behalf of the community they haven't managed to say or do anything relevant to me in the year and a bit I have lived here.

The idea of charging for membership of such a thing is hideously old fashioned.

[michael]

Working with local amenity societies helps to ensure greater inclusiveness, but does not guarantee it. Having meetings open to all (as have been organised previously by the amenity societies) and now by SEE3 does ensure a bit more inclusion, but it is relatively self-selecting.

I'll be at the meeting on Tuesday and there is plenty to discuss other than Kirkdale.

As for the Amenity Society Panel, I have only attended a few times, but did not feel that it was the most worthwhile part of the planning process. Some of the other proposed changes are more worrying (like not writing to neighbours and relying on site notices, which sometimes are not visible). The problem is that the Amenity Society Panel is likely to be most worthwhile to areas that do not have strong amenity societies of their own, and it is commendable that those attending think beyond their area of interest. But having not attended for years, despite being invited to the fortnightly meetings, I don't really have a leg to stand on if I claim it is vital to the planning process.

On the subject of subscriptions to amenity societies, I would hope that every group has some way to allow members to pay a minimal membership in the case of poverty. But the small amount of subscription (less than two pints of beer per year) helps the amenity societies to produce newsletters, to actively engage beyond their membership, and to help fund worthwhile initiatives in the local area. If it were not for membership fees the Forest Hill Society would not have been able to work with other groups to save the swimming pool or to set up a monthly food fair (which led to a deli and butcher opening on the high street). Similarly I'm sure that Syd Soc have used their funds to safeguard swimming pools, libraries, and many other facilities that you consider part of the fabric of the local area.

I would urge anybody who posts regularly on this forum to consider joining the Sydenham Society. But more importantly I would encourage you to attend their meetings and events.

[Tim Lund]

Well said, Michael. Also worth noting that SydSoc was very much involved, with others recruited via this Forum, in countering a petition against the Sydenham Road Improvements. Where are Tim, Tom and Gwyn now?

[hairybuddha]

Thanks Michael, well reasoned, as ever. As I said, I don't really feel that it has much relevance to things that I care about. I am already involved in other ways with groups that don't expect me to pay.

If it were not for membership fees the Forest Hill Society would not have been able to work with other groups to save the swimming pool or to set up a monthly food fair (which led to a deli and butcher opening on the high street). Similarly I'm sure that Syd Soc have used their funds to safeguard swimming pools, libraries, and many other facilities that you consider part of the fabric of the local area.

These all sound like great initiatives and I was already aware of most of it. Does SydSoc have any kind of impact assessment function? i.e would these things have not happened without it? What difference did the group make? My comment about memberships being old fashioned was not an attempt to annoy anyone. I would actually be far more inclined to become a member for no charge and contribute by donations, either to a group as a whole or to specific campaigns. From someone like me that would be worth much more than £6.50 to the group. Charging for membership feels oddly elitist for a group that seeks to be representative.

[Eagle]

HB

I would not think six pounds odd per annum elitist . Cost of 2 or 3 cups of coffee. I am not sure is an assessment ever made to access whether things would have happened anyway.

Surely they saved The Greyhound!

Mrs Trembath honoured by Her Majesty.

[Robin Orton]

Anyway, my point is I see absoutely no benefit in signing up to or getting involved with SydSoc. Though I'm sure they do marvellous work on behalf of the community they haven't managed to say or do anything relevant to me in the year and a bit I have lived here.The idea of charging for membership of such a thing is hideously old fashioned.

'Old-fashioned'? I don't understand. I am more than happy to make a modest annual contribution towards the costs of an organisation which works hard to protect and enhance the civic environment which we all share. It is almost worth it for the excellent newsletter alone. How else could SydSoc meet its expenses other than by membership subscriptions?

[hairybuddha]

By donations Robin - I even said so in my post.

[hairybuddha]

I would not think six pounds odd per annum elitist .

Elitism has nothing to do with the sum Eagle.

Surely free membership could be offered to all residents of Sydenham for the price of an email address. Then the group could look for contributions from its members and beyond to fund it's campaigning activities. That would be a truly modern and Democratic approach (the capital D is deliberate).

[Tim Lund]

Surely free membership could be offered to all residents of Sydenham for the price of an email address. Then the group could look for contributions from its members and beyond to fund its campaigning activities. That would be a truly modern and Democratic approach (the capital D is deliberate).

A crowd sourced Amenity Society? That would be interesting, and certainly modern. Not sure how much more democratic it would be. I think of 38 degrees when it comes to crowd sourcing campaign groups, which while very worthy in many ways, at other times feels like a well organised, trendy mob. Give me that old time religion, representative liberal democracy like it used to be.

[youtubes]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDCiqWcV7NY[/youtubes]