154-158 Sydenham Road

[John H]

This was approved last night

That is fantastic news. Just for information in speaking to the developers they have also offered to acquire the adjacent Sivers yard with the hope of including it as part of their scheme.

That would be good news... but old man Sivyer so hates Lewisham Council I wonder if he will be persuaded. He does not need this yard at all. He only keeps it to spite Lewisham because of two compulsory orders that removed the alternative entrances.

[syd-gal]

This is now in the Newsshopper
http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/16444 ... -approved/

[Tim Lund]

That would be good news... but old man Sivyer so hates Lewisham Council I wonder if he will be persuaded. He does not need this yard at all. He only keeps it to spite Lewisham because of two compulsory orders that removed the alternative entrances.

That's amazing, but somehow I can still believe it. Can you give more details? When were these CPOs?

[John H]

That would be good news... but old man Sivyer so hates Lewisham Council I wonder if he will be persuaded. He does not need this yard at all. He only keeps it to spite Lewisham because of two compulsory orders that removed the alternative entrances.

That's amazing, but somehow I can still believe it. Can you give more details? When were these CPOs?

I do not know. Old man Sivyer made a great deal of them at a public meeting, in the Lovely Gallery, concerning a previous incarnation of this plan.

[John H]

I do recall one of the entrances had been in Hillmore Grove. I believe where the drying area for the council flats is.

[JRW]

Sivyers have shot themselves in the foot over this. They could have sold it for a good price, but with a single entrance, the only feasible buyers are Peabody, who already have an alternative access road. Hopefully, they can offer Sivyers a deal, but it won't be what Sivyers could have made 5 years ago, selling to a private developer.

Btw, Sivyers have already moved their registered company address from the yard to another site, and they seem to be reducing the amount of site traffic. Hopefully they are preparing their exit. When they do, I suggest a street party!

[Larky]

Oh gosh, another one on her hit list

[JGD]

The Society for the 19th Century and their acolytes have no sense of constraint in these matters.

It would seem that a long list of bodies, companies, neighbours and not-so-near neighbours is subject to their opprobrium. More recent candidates have been:

• Sivyers
  SGN
  Kier
  Aldi
  The Tudor Hall Social Club (tenants of Livesey Hall)
  The developers of 154-158
  St Philip Neri Schools (one of the few bodies about whom a wild accusation had to be withdrawn by the Society and a half-hearted public apology made)
  The local Archdiocese
  Constituents and residents of the Bellingham Ward (only because they are there and do not have a Bellingham Civic Society.and prevailed to halt SydSoc's mis-directed efforts to have the Gas Holders retained).

Having seen posts published before I joined here, by SydSoc re Planning Applications, the degree to which accusations and negative comments will be made and their tone is off the scale too.

I am all for free speech and people's entitlement to it, but it also comes with responsibility and accountability.

[JGD]

I concur.

The main issues around the school are sound. But the School itself and its Governors were and are not party to what the architects and builders have perpetrated here.

A broad brush approach to tarring everyone is mis-placed and put simply - unacceptable.

[TredownMan]

Leaving aside the school and the gasholders, in the past 12 months we've seen:

154 Sydenham Road – 29 homes. (Approved by council).

Kenton Court – 25 council homes (approved).

88 Bell Green: 23 flats. (Pending decision by council).

219 Sydenham Road: block of five flats. (Approved).

27 Fransfield Grove – one family home. (Approved).

In total some 80+ good new homes or flats locally, mixture of private, affordable or council -- and which were opposed in the planning process by SydSoc for a range of reasons, without announcement to members. Plus there's Hillcrest Estate (20+ council homes) coming up for decision.

Is it really so unreasonable to ask if the community should be consulted/informed?

[JGD]

Is it really so unreasonable to ask if the community should be consulted/informed?

A very creditable piece of work.

A significant and informative list.

Does the Society for the Nineteenth Century wish to share with us for how many of these projects they expressed support ?

Could it be the case that there is not a single project in which affordable housing has been proposed that has enjoyed SydSoc's overt or covert support ?

To me as an outsider it stretches credibility that SydSoc's pronouncements are less than transparent to their members for those projects within their geography and that this incredulous position is magnified when the society overreaches and expresses views beyond their boundaries without engaging in consultation with residents.

Enough !

I have the good fortune to live in what is soon to be a gas holder free zone in Perry Hill where SydSoc's writ is spent and is no more.

[John H]

Sivyers have shot themselves in the foot over this. They could have sold it for a good price, but with a single entrance, the only feasible buyers are Peabody, who already have an alternative access road. Hopefully, they can offer Sivyers a deal, but it won't be what Sivyers could have made 5 years ago, selling to a private developer.

Btw, Sivyers have already moved their registered company address from the yard to another site, and they seem to be reducing the amount of site traffic. Hopefully they are preparing their exit. When they do, I suggest a street party!

Forget the street. Hire a hall!

[TredownMan]

As if to prove my point, the latest Syd Soc newsletter contains another strongly-worded update on the school (fine, fill your boots) but fails to mention the society's bid to block these new homes.

[stuart]

I left the Society because as it was issuing objections to what I (or I believe a majority of Sydenham people want) in my name with zero consultation.

Which has led to a problem of polarisation as I wasn't alone. The membership has been reduced to those who share a particular viewpoint or are content not to contest it. Furthermore SydSoc have ignored public consultations. They withdrew their support of this forum and hence chance to explain their decisions because of the consequent unwelcome criticism they had experienced.

We have an 'us & them' standoff.

So where do we go from here? I have the feeling that a reading of the minutes and decisions suggest that Lewisham is less in awe of the Society than it was. But it still has a special position which appears to be increasingly abusing "to be the neighbourhood voice" in lacking a "neighbourhood ear".

I don't think that is a good outcome. Should we consider whether 'entryism' is an option to make SydSoc more diverse and more reflective and to base decisions on better well thought out application of evidence based policies? Would such 'entry-ism' be welcomed or not when the clear object is to change the current ethos?

Perhaps the Society could make its views known - informally - if they prefer not to be seen here. Perhaps any members here may like to comment?

Stuart

[Larky]

Stuart - not sure how the Syd Soc works.

If you join them, do you get a chance to voice your opinion or do they have an 'internal committee' who decides on the planning application reviews and suggestions to LBL?

[Tim Lund]

Once upon a time, SydSoc, as FH Soc does still, had its constitution available on line.

[TredownMan]

I don't think entryism is the right approach. If homeowners want to form a club where they work to block new homes that's their full entitlement

I just get tired of being told that this anti-housing activism is the "voice for Sydenham" when its not

[JGD]

.....If homeowners want to form a club where they work to block new homes that's their full entitlement

I just get tired of being told that this anti-housing activism is the "voice for Sydenham" when its not

I agree entirely. Forming a "club" is one thing. SydSoc is a "constituted" Civic Society. This status gives it recognition with LB Lewisham on planning matters and the greater weight given to the Society's postulations by the authority exceeds those expressed by individual constituents and members of the public. Not infrequently representatives from the Society will be allocated the entirety of the very limited time (is it five minutes?) allocated at planning meetings for the views of the public to be heard to the dis-benefit of any other views..

I find it equally tiring and unacceptable, particularly when the Society projects its views into any geography in which it has no writ and most certainly does not consult with constituents in that area. It was this absence of consultation that prevented the Society from knowing what, and there was many, advantages were present in the Kier proposal at Bell Green. At best they did not know what they were, at worst they were wilfully ignored.

In either case the Society could not have behaved more inappropriately.

It is to be hoped as the gas holder demolition proceeds now unhindered by SydSoc's lop-sided objections that the existing parking spaces present on site can be opened up as part of the site remediation works.At least this partial restoration will provide significant easement on on-street parking pressures to the Hall's neighbours.

[John H]

.....If homeowners want to form a club where they work to block new homes that's their full entitlement

I just get tired of being told that this anti-housing activism is the "voice for Sydenham" when its not

I agree entirely. Forming a "club" is one thing. SydSoc is a "constituted" Civic Society. This status gives it recognition with LB Lewisham on planning matters and the greater weight given to the Society's postulations by the authority exceeds those expressed by individual constituents and members of the public. Not infrequently representatives from the Society will be allocated the entirety of the very limited time (is it five minutes?) allocated at planning meetings for the views of the public to be heard to the dis-benefit of any other views..

I find it equally tiring and unacceptable, particularly when the Society projects its views into any geography in which it has no writ and most certainly does not consult with constituents in that area. It was this absence of consultation that prevented the Society from knowing what, and there was many, advantages were present in the Kier proposal at Bell Green. At best they did not know what they were, at worst they were wilfully ignored.

In either case the Society could not have behaved more inappropriately.

It is to be hoped as the gas holder demolition proceeds now unhindered by SydSoc's lop-sided objections that the existing parking spaces present on site can be opened up as part of the site remediation works.At least this partial restoration will provide significant easement on on-street parking pressures to the Hall's neighbours.

There you are. Not many of us knew the go ahead had been given for the demolition of the eyesore gas holders. I have taken a fresh look at those and it would have been possible for them to have been incorporated into the design of new buildings. However I doubt whether that would be an economic proposition.

[Larky]

I have received a message from Admin to say that I am being 'most unpleasant to JRW and that I need to edit my posted comments or I will be banned'

I will therefore not bother to post on Sydenham Town Forum any more.