154-158 Sydenham Road

[JGD]

Larky and @admin

JRW from time to time displays a sense of good judgement on the issues which she supports.

However there exists a tendency for that poster to react in an over-sensitised way to any and every criticism made of her posts. And not least when a reaction to any post where she has made a generalised criticism, implicit or explicit, of the people or bodies involved and not the actual subject matter. In other places I have seen these forms of attack as being described as ad hominem. There is at least one example where criticism of the governors of St Philip Neri School which went too far and apologies had to be made..

Without any sense of gravity or grievance she accused me once of having neighbours who must be afraid of me - without foundation for that view or apology. I generally choose not to remark on these episodes, but Larky does not deserve such criticism.

I would request that a review be conducted of the behaviour in a wider context, Larky is not the only poster to have made observation on it.

Larky - please reconsider.

Stay.

[Pally]

JGD

[stuart]

Can't put it better than JGD. Come on Larky if we couldn't take criticism - justified or not - then this place would be empty. Stay, and just stay off the ad hominens.

Stuart

[Growsydenham]

Despite the objections mentioned earlier in this thread, the planning committee approved the new bloc of 23 flats on the derelict shops at 86 Bell Green on Tuesday night.

[iandavenport]

Despite the objections mentioned earlier in this thread, the planning committee approved the new bloc of 23 flats on the derelict shops at 86 Bell Green on Tuesday night.

Can you point me to a record of that please Growsydenham? I've looked at the application on the Lewisham planning site and it has an expiry of 12 November, no mention of any approval. I've found it on the agenda of the meeting on September 11th , but it doesn't detail any decisions. I'm a member of the patients group at Sydenham Green Surgery, and we are concerned about the impact of this on patients and patient access in the future.

[Growsydenham]

Yes of course - there's a news report here.

https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/1683 ... -approved/

It's accurate, although slightly one-sided in focusing on the objections but not those in favour.

[JRW]

Um, nobody spoke in favour of it except the developer. Councillor Smith said he liked the look of it, but also had a lot of criticism for the developers, including that they had improperly lobbied him directly. In the end the councillors agreed to pass it, they said, because they feared being taken to an expensive appeal. Several of them said on the record that the planning process needed looking at, as negotiations over community benefit in lieu of social housing were not done until the very last minute. Oh, and Bellingham councillor Jacqueline Paschoud criticised objectors requests for social enterprise benefits from the developers, saying that Bell Green was well provided for, and had no need of extra help.

[Growsydenham]

I was referring to the 30+ letters of support from locals mentioned in the planning report. I just think newspaper coverage of housing often exaggerates the anti- campaign and this is a good example

[JGD]

Um, nobody spoke in favour of it except the developer. Councillor Smith said he liked the look of it, but also had a lot of criticism for the developers, including that they had improperly lobbied him directly. In the end the councillors agreed to pass it, they said, because they feared being taken to an expensive appeal. Several of them said on the record that the planning process needed looking at, as negotiations over community benefit in lieu of social housing were not done until the very last minute. Oh, and Bellingham councillor Jacqueline Paschoud criticised objectors requests for social enterprise benefits from the developers, saying that Bell Green was well provided for, and had no need of extra help.

Improper lobbying ? - ptcha - seems like the society for the 19th Century doesn't enjoy the boot being on the other foot. Oh how they loved queuing up to save the gas holders in opposition to a majority of Bellingham residents who want them demolished soonest. That decision to demolish has been conclusively made.

As for negotiations at the last minute - this same society rushed through a local listing for the gas-holders in less time than it took to reach a proper planning decision itself. Once more, boot on the other foot comes to mind.

And how dare a Bellingham councillor criticise objectors requests for social enterprise benefits - perhaps one of Sydenham's incumbents should have made the criticism - what possible benefits can Sydenham possibly need ?

The society for the 19th Century was perfectly content to ignore through ignorance the benefits of the Kier's proposal for the gas-holder site. Perhaps this is too bitter a pill to swallow when you are subject to commentary and opinion upon which you can exercise no influence.

[JRW]

Always good to hear your viewpoint, JGD.

All campaigning that has been done by the objectors has been done openly and honestly, with the information made public so you can sneer at it. At no point has anybody made a private approach to pressure a member of the planning committee; the ethical difference is clear. Of course, the member criticised them for doing so, but the lack of committee reaction to this makes me uneasy.

I think it is sad that you cannot allow other people to speak without hurling abuse.at them. I do not demand that anyone agrees with me, and would encourage anyone who doesn't to participate in the planning process. I have heard you with respect, although I haven't always agreed with you, but you have just shouted me down and have clearly never listened to a word I said.

You ask 'what possible benefits can Sydenham possibly need?' We were asking for help to be given to Bell Green itself, and I think many of your neighbours might be startled by your question! It is an area with huge potential which has so far been squandered, and is in real need of tlc. This opportunity to get community benefit has been thrown away by the words of the councillor that is elected to represent the residents. Impressive.

I agree that nothing was reported as to the letters in favour; that is because they were neither read out or summarised, so clearly the committee is not interested in local opinion of any kind. Their existence was merely noted, so the reporter was in no position to expand on their content. From going to planning meetings, my impression is that written submissions to planning are not really considered unless they are followed up. If people are in favour of a plan, then they need to send at least one person to the meeting. I'm not saying this is right, it is just an observation that letters seem to count by bulk, rather than by their content. Btw, every other planning authority puts such comments online, so they can be accessed by all; Lewisham fails to even tell us the number of comments received.

[TredownMan]

There’s still no mention of the objection to this housing on the Sydenham society website, newsletter or twitter feed.

Is that why the council is seeming to disregard their objections more and more - because they don’t believe the Executive speaks to or for the wider community?

[JGD]

I think it is sad that you cannot allow other people to speak without hurling abuse.at them.

but you have just shouted me down and have clearly never listened to a word I said.

Interesting that, as is typical in a lot of your responses, you choose to attempt to condemn the poster and re-interprate it with your own negative characteristics to what is a a fairly precise .commentary.

If you believe the second quote to be accurate why don't you test that nonsense with admin.

What will you do after that? Accuse me once more of having neighbours who fear me ?

It will be found that I will not be another Larky.

Oh and btw - come back Larky.

[JGD]

You ask 'what possible benefits can Sydenham possibly need?' We were asking for help to be given to Bell Green itself, and I think many of your neighbours might be startled by your question! It is an area with huge potential which has so far been squandered, and is in real need of tlc

I should have read it more closely - for there it is - another reference to my neighbours and an attempt to report and foster some discord.

Do you have a fixation about this behaviour/? Is it a feature prominent in your life ?

I checked the application. The site is listed as being in Sydenham Ward. So what benefits, precisely, were you requesting be given to Bell Green? Were these articulated somewhere ? Were there insufficient needs arising in Sydenham itself - or is this all just a symptom of displacement activity?

[Pally]

Where can I find the specific commentary from the Sydenham Society to the planning committee on this application? Sorry if I have missed it on the Sydenham Society website ! Unfortunately I cant seem to open the links posted earlier in thread either

[JRW]

JGD. I referred to Bell Green, because it is in Bell Green, and its address is Bell Green. Its neighbours are those that live around it, no matter which arbitrary administrative boundary they cross. Your neighbours include objectors, who spoke about the need for social benefit, and they have a right to be heard.

I use the word neighbours as meaning the community we are surrounded by, not just the people who live immediately next door. I respected your longstanding claims that Bell Green is separate from Sydenham, despite all historical evidence, and you turn it back on me. I have no wish to be confrontational, but I do wish you channelled your convictions through the correct channels, and attended planning meetings and followed up on the details. Please save your efforts for the politicians who decide on these matters.

[JGD]

Planning Portal states clearly it is located in Sydenham Ward .

https://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online ... CAPR_92473

The blue boundary sign announcing this is Sydenham is located next to Sivyer's ramp.

Whilst the location of the Sydenham boundary seems to be a movable feast - the collective wisdom seem to be fairly conclusive - it is in Sydenham.

It is noted that there is no response to the request to articulate what benefits were to be vested upon Bell Green.

As to correct channels - my responses are made directly to postings - therefore this channel could not be more correct or appropriate.

[broken_shaman]

a majority of Bellingham residents who want them demolished soonest.

Evidence please.

[Growsydenham]

I think this debate may have got mixed between two developments: the houses at 154-158 Sydenham Road, and flats at 86 Bell Green. Both are now going ahead.

[JGD]

a majority of Bellingham residents who want them demolished soonest.

Evidence please.

What evidence is being called for - the decision has been reached by Lewisham planning officers with their delegated powers - the demolition is approved. That decision point is behind us now. What benefit is there in revisiting the matter?

SydSoc appended the gas holders issue, unannounced in advance, to the end of the last St Philip Neri meeting. Unexpectedly and to their surprise and chagrin a significant proportion of those attendees who were Bellingham residents stood in support of the approval of the council's decision and congratulated the council. The gas-holders' real neighbours sought particularly to have those benefits that SydSoc had professed to have no knowledge restored to Bellingham residents. This portion of the meeting is not included in any reports of the event.

So place the imperious "evidence please" call where SydSoc does have a writ - and that writ does not extend to Bellingham Ward or its residents.

[JGD]

I think this debate may have got mixed between two developments: the houses at 154-158 Sydenham Road, and flats at 86 Bell Green. Both are now going ahead.

Thank you Growsydenham for the contribution - I was aware that both projects now had approvals in place.

Whist I cannot speak for others my comments here are specifically and directly related in response to posts about 154-158.

You could be right of course in that others may have erroneously made reference to 86 Bell Green. It's all in the post's title really.