As a fairly new resident of Sydenham (I've been here for 3 years) and regular user of the high street, my first reaction to the proposed development at Bell Green was the same as most peoples. I had heard what the place was like before the Savacentre arrived and I was worried that the development would mean even more life would be sucked out of the high street.
I've read through the forums and there are a number of themes around lack of "decent" pubs / place to eat and generally about how Sydenham is going downhill. The only thing that is going to change this, is if someone starts to invest in Sydenham. If one decent bar opens in the high street then more may follow, just as the pound shops and nail bars have multiplied.
A successful development in Bell Green could well raise Sydenham obviously lacking profile in the minds of those who open bars and more sophisticated shops and maybe the next one that opens will not be yet another bookies, pound shop or nail bar. The transformation will not be immediate but thinking slightly longer term, it might actually be a benefit.
Am I mad or is there some merit in this argument?
Could Bell Green development be good for the high Street?
The idea that expansion at Bell Green will jolt retailers (and potential retailers) into bucking up their ideas and that a more healthy and vibrant retailing scene will develop flies in the face of evidence of what is happening in high street and town centres all over Britain. Sydenham Road isn't unique - reports from think-tanks and researchers provide plenty of case histories.
The reason we have (in the main) the poor quality, low spending activities in the high street which people complain about is because few other types of retailing will currently succeed. Diverting more money to a retail site one mile down the road will merely make it more difficult for the stores that are currently in Sydenham Road to survive.
Just look what's happened in food retailing over the last 10-15 years. With the rise of the hypermarkets and superstores, we were told that retailers on the high street needed to specialise and provide services more tailored to the needs of their customers. However, in Sydenham Road the shops that have tried to do this - butchers, greengrocers, fishmongers etc - have struggled to survive as the supermarkets have swept up all of the extra spending. What's taken their place are small general grocers stores (the ethnic foodstores for example) who survive generally on absurdly long opening hours and absurdly low incomes. They and the pound shops proliferate - and all selling much the same stuff to the same people. Nothing wrong with these shops (I use them daily) but they aren't a blueprint for long-term success.
Opening new creative, attractive businesses in Sydenham isn't easy because you are fighting against the prevailing low spend culture. It can be done as we've seen with businesses in Forest Hill but it would be completely wrong to suggest that continued expansion at Bell Green will make this easier.
Perhaps Matt G or anyone else who holds this point of view could explain in detail the mechanism of how packing the area with out of centre retail sheds will help to bring this new type of retailer to the fore. I'd genuinely like to know. Saying "it'll shake up the high st" isn't much of an analysis - tell us more and we can then perhaps follow this new approach to urban regeneration.
The reason we have (in the main) the poor quality, low spending activities in the high street which people complain about is because few other types of retailing will currently succeed. Diverting more money to a retail site one mile down the road will merely make it more difficult for the stores that are currently in Sydenham Road to survive.
Just look what's happened in food retailing over the last 10-15 years. With the rise of the hypermarkets and superstores, we were told that retailers on the high street needed to specialise and provide services more tailored to the needs of their customers. However, in Sydenham Road the shops that have tried to do this - butchers, greengrocers, fishmongers etc - have struggled to survive as the supermarkets have swept up all of the extra spending. What's taken their place are small general grocers stores (the ethnic foodstores for example) who survive generally on absurdly long opening hours and absurdly low incomes. They and the pound shops proliferate - and all selling much the same stuff to the same people. Nothing wrong with these shops (I use them daily) but they aren't a blueprint for long-term success.
Opening new creative, attractive businesses in Sydenham isn't easy because you are fighting against the prevailing low spend culture. It can be done as we've seen with businesses in Forest Hill but it would be completely wrong to suggest that continued expansion at Bell Green will make this easier.
Perhaps Matt G or anyone else who holds this point of view could explain in detail the mechanism of how packing the area with out of centre retail sheds will help to bring this new type of retailer to the fore. I'd genuinely like to know. Saying "it'll shake up the high st" isn't much of an analysis - tell us more and we can then perhaps follow this new approach to urban regeneration.
I cant argue with what you're saying and I'm certainly no expert.
But if you look at Forest Hill, the highstreet was similar to Sydenham in the 90s and then most of the shops were forced to close and only then (after a period where the highstreet was almost dead) did the regeneration start to take hold.
But if you look at Forest Hill, the highstreet was similar to Sydenham in the 90s and then most of the shops were forced to close and only then (after a period where the highstreet was almost dead) did the regeneration start to take hold.
But Matt, if you're not sure about your views and you can't back them up with even the most elementary arguments, why are you putting them forward in a public forum?
The "Big Bang" theory of economic development i.e. shake things up, leave them in ruin and something may apppear from the wreckage, simply doesn't hold up.
In the 1970s the steel works in Ebbw Vale closed down because of a lessening in world demand for steel and the supply of cheap steel from Korea and Japan. Employment in the town was decimated and still remains that way to this day. I'm not suggesting that we hold up progress (Ebbw Vale had to close) but there is no guarantee that if you wreck something that a better thing will blossom in its place. In the case of our high street, if you wreck a retail environment why should it be more likely that retailers will find it easier to resurrect something from the ruins? They are likely to find it more difficult, surely?
The "Big Bang" theory of economic development i.e. shake things up, leave them in ruin and something may apppear from the wreckage, simply doesn't hold up.
In the 1970s the steel works in Ebbw Vale closed down because of a lessening in world demand for steel and the supply of cheap steel from Korea and Japan. Employment in the town was decimated and still remains that way to this day. I'm not suggesting that we hold up progress (Ebbw Vale had to close) but there is no guarantee that if you wreck something that a better thing will blossom in its place. In the case of our high street, if you wreck a retail environment why should it be more likely that retailers will find it easier to resurrect something from the ruins? They are likely to find it more difficult, surely?
-
Paddy Pantsdown
- Posts: 204
- Joined: 1 Oct 2004 10:04
- Location: Venner Road
While you are right Nasaroc I do have some sympathy for Matt's view.
The Bell Green development has been decided by Lewisham. It looks like the only thing that will stop it is the GLA. If the latter Bell Green will remain a useless dump for the forseeable future and also be a drag on the attractiveness and vitality of Sydenham. Either way we lose.
You can send submissions to the GLA and hope. No excuse not to address the High Street problem which was not created by Bell Green. Even if you don't want the BG development you have to look to see if there is any benefit that can be weedled out of it. Perhaps playing on our councillors guilt in ignoring the electors.
There is an election in nine months time. If Labour had an upset in a recent Forest Hill election worse could happen here. Now is the time for the Lewisham Labour group to try and buy our votes with some decent investment/improvement for Sydenham. Just a little of what Deptford gets would be a help.
You can't beat self interest and a desire for survival to get things done. At 'em Nasaroc!
The Bell Green development has been decided by Lewisham. It looks like the only thing that will stop it is the GLA. If the latter Bell Green will remain a useless dump for the forseeable future and also be a drag on the attractiveness and vitality of Sydenham. Either way we lose.
You can send submissions to the GLA and hope. No excuse not to address the High Street problem which was not created by Bell Green. Even if you don't want the BG development you have to look to see if there is any benefit that can be weedled out of it. Perhaps playing on our councillors guilt in ignoring the electors.
There is an election in nine months time. If Labour had an upset in a recent Forest Hill election worse could happen here. Now is the time for the Lewisham Labour group to try and buy our votes with some decent investment/improvement for Sydenham. Just a little of what Deptford gets would be a help.
You can't beat self interest and a desire for survival to get things done. At 'em Nasaroc!
In response to Nasaroc's question about an arguments for the development. The issue is that people aren't coming into Sydenham. The Savacentre is only partly to blame for that - it isn't exactly a success for Sainsbury's either. People are going elsewhere, be it Beckenham. Bromley, Croydon or wherever. Why? because they can't get what they want locally. There are facts as well as anecdotal evidence to back that up, albeit from the reports produced by the developers, that say that the area has one of the lowest "in borough" spends. If the shops, bars etc are to survive then that needs to be addressed. You can't have a vibrant town without people. My point is this; it is not a case of Sydenham High Road vs Bell Green, but much bigger than that, it is Sydenham vs out of borough. It is about improving Sydenham as a whole. It is true that throwing up a few DIY shed will not do that, but (1) there is more to the plan than that and (2) it is only a start. One improvement will lead to another, whilst one big waste area will cast a shadow over the whole area and deter anyone thinking of investing in the area.
I accept that it would be disastrous if the Bell Green site remained largely a wasteland. No-one who is opposed to retail sheds argues that the site shouldn't be developed. It's just that British Gas want to maximise their profits by providing only retailing on the site. For 15 years we've waited for the sheds to arrive whilst the majority of the land has turned into a wasteland. Now, under local pressure the developer has agreed to some housing (not instead of any planned retail space but in addition to it!) plus an "incubator" unit to develop local business. Despite these additions, plans for the site remain almost exclusively dependent on retailing.
The argument by Kster (above) is that the further development of Bell Green will, in some way, help secure Sydenham's overall economic development by bringing new life into our high street. But this flies in the face of clear evidence to the contrary in every region of Britain where an "out of centre" supermarket or retail park has been constructed. Whether in areas where the high street is prosperous or where it is ailing, the effect has been the same - the high street has suffered a massive downturn. Just take a look at this report, Ghost Town Britain by the New Economics Foundation - it is just one of many reporting the same effect
http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/m1_1_i4_renewal.aspx.
Kster also argues that local people are shopping in other retail parks outside of the area such as Bromley or Beckenham and we need to get them back into this borough. But will it really change things if Mr and Mrs Smith shop in Homebase in Sydenham rather than Homebase in Penge? And how will this help Sydenham Road?
Rather than accepting a development plan for Bell Green based almost totally on retailing, we need a mixed plan based on housing, recreation, industry and light retailing. It's perfectly possible - indeed the developer has already turned away many applications from local companies who want to expand their business by relocating to Bell Green but have been rejected because of the high profits which come from retail sheds. There is no cinema in the borough;why not build one at Bell Green?
Kster's argument seems to be - this is the best we're going to get, it fills a space, let's accept it. But why settle for the lowest common denominator? And I'm still puzzled - how does this benefit our high street?
The argument by Kster (above) is that the further development of Bell Green will, in some way, help secure Sydenham's overall economic development by bringing new life into our high street. But this flies in the face of clear evidence to the contrary in every region of Britain where an "out of centre" supermarket or retail park has been constructed. Whether in areas where the high street is prosperous or where it is ailing, the effect has been the same - the high street has suffered a massive downturn. Just take a look at this report, Ghost Town Britain by the New Economics Foundation - it is just one of many reporting the same effect
http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/m1_1_i4_renewal.aspx.
Kster also argues that local people are shopping in other retail parks outside of the area such as Bromley or Beckenham and we need to get them back into this borough. But will it really change things if Mr and Mrs Smith shop in Homebase in Sydenham rather than Homebase in Penge? And how will this help Sydenham Road?
Rather than accepting a development plan for Bell Green based almost totally on retailing, we need a mixed plan based on housing, recreation, industry and light retailing. It's perfectly possible - indeed the developer has already turned away many applications from local companies who want to expand their business by relocating to Bell Green but have been rejected because of the high profits which come from retail sheds. There is no cinema in the borough;why not build one at Bell Green?
Kster's argument seems to be - this is the best we're going to get, it fills a space, let's accept it. But why settle for the lowest common denominator? And I'm still puzzled - how does this benefit our high street?
Now that the dust has settled on the Council’s decisions on the Bell Green planning applications I’d like to comment on the actions of those of our local councillors (representing wards in either Forest Hill, Perry Vale, or Sydenham) who attended the Council planning meetings. I was there as a member of the Sydenham Society, but the views that follow I express as a local resident.
There were three local councillors present – Chris Best, Colin Hastie, and Dave Whiting. All of them spoke in favour of the applications. None expressed any serious concern about the impact of the Bell Green proposals on their constituents.
For example, Councillor Best supported the housing element of the applications (as does the Sydenham Society) but expressed no particular concern about the likely impact of the retail developments on either traffic levels in Sydenham or on the Sydenham shopping centre. She chose to virtually ignore both issues – despite the Society earlier warning the meeting of a predicted traffic increase in Sydenham Road of 11% (Saturday peak) and of a predicted trade diversion from Sydenham shops of approaching £500,000 pa. Both predictions were taken from the developer’s own documents.
The nearest Councillor Best came to addressing retail impact was when she referred to “doom and gloom” predictions made when the Savacentre was approved in 1995, which fears, she said, had never materialised. I wonder whether Councillor Best had spoken to Sydenham traders before making that ill-informed remark, or whether she had noticed the virtual disappearance of the shopping parade at Bell Green, whose demise even the Council now acknowledge as resulting from the opening of the Savacentre.
I have no objection in principle to Councillor Best taking a view in favour of the Bell Green applications. There are arguments either side of the matter. What I do object to is Councillor Best’s apparent failure to equip herself with a proper understanding of the issues. She spoke in favour without displaying any grasp of the detail and without acknowledging or responding to the fears expressed by many local residents, especially about traffic. In my view Councillor Best failed her constituents, and badly so. Her stance in respect of the Bell Green proposals was superficial and did absolutely nothing to promote the aim of a “vibrant Sydenham Road” to which Councillor Best claims to be committed.
Councillor Hastie’s contribution to the debate was of a similar calibre. He argued (laughably) that a Homebase at Bell Green wouldn’t generate a lot of traffic. He went so far as to say that the Bell Green developments would reduce traffic movements in the area. The fact that the Bell Green site will, after development, have over 1,800 car parking spaces and that 77% of visits to the new developments will be made by car, appeared to escape Councillor Hastie’s attention. He also failed to notice that not even the Council claim that there will be an overall reduction in traffic movements on the network.
As for retailing, Councillor Hastie confidently asserted that Sydenham shopkeepers still cling to old habits of lunch-time closing and half day closing - the implication being that if large scale retailing at Bell Green causes Sydenham shopkeepers problems then that’s their own fault. Councillor Hastie’s statements suggested that (a) he has not visited Sydenham Road for 20 years or more, and (b) that he has not read the officer’s reports on the proposals – like the bits that predict significant traffic increases (peak period) across the local network and that detail major trade diversions from local shopping centres. To be fair, Councillor Hastie did spend some time focussing on bicycle security for those travelling to the proposed retail park under pedal power. Fair point. I look forward to the sight of thousands of Homebase shoppers wobbling around the area on bikes laden with planks of wood, bags of cement, garden furniture, and the other bulky products in which the company specialises.
Oh yes, one more point. Councillor Hastie confidently asserted that putting housing on the Phase II site in place of retailing would generate more traffic than the existing retail proposals. Councillor Hastie failed to advance a shred of evidence supporting his breezy (and wrong) generalisation, which reflected a failure on his part to think the arguments through.
Finally, there was Councillor Whiting. He made some relevant points about the drive thru restaurant element of the application and about public security issues. He even acknowledged, unlike Councillor Best, that the Savacentre had killed off the shopping parade at Bell Green. However he went and spoilt his apparent reasonableness by arguing that those who oppose the proposed development at Bell Green had to accept that there is a need to provide modernised forms of retailing in the area. The word ludicrous springs to mind. I hate to break the news to Councillor Whiting, but retail parks have been around for several decades. It is their destructive effects on local shopping centres, and their creation of extra traffic, that resulted several years ago in a tightening of planning laws in order to curb the worst effects of such developments.
Having departed from sensible argument Councillor Whiting went even further down that road by contending that the retail park at Bell Green would not have a damaging impact on Forest Hill shopping centre. He blithely ignored the developer’s own assessment which predicts an annual trade loss of £550,000 for Forest Hill – representing a diversion of 12.5% from current bulky goods trading in the area.
The Sydenham Society has attempted many times to get local councillors to take an informed interest in the Bell Green site and the officials' policy of transforming it into a giant retail park. They have just as consistently chosen to remain ignorant – that goes for all of the councillors in our local wards and not just those who attended the Planning Committee meetings.
It all begs the question of what is the point of our existing local councillors?
Maybe some of our local councillors would like to step forward and explain either why they couldn't be bothered to take an interest in the Bell Green applications, or why, when they did, they were so ill-informed.
There were three local councillors present – Chris Best, Colin Hastie, and Dave Whiting. All of them spoke in favour of the applications. None expressed any serious concern about the impact of the Bell Green proposals on their constituents.
For example, Councillor Best supported the housing element of the applications (as does the Sydenham Society) but expressed no particular concern about the likely impact of the retail developments on either traffic levels in Sydenham or on the Sydenham shopping centre. She chose to virtually ignore both issues – despite the Society earlier warning the meeting of a predicted traffic increase in Sydenham Road of 11% (Saturday peak) and of a predicted trade diversion from Sydenham shops of approaching £500,000 pa. Both predictions were taken from the developer’s own documents.
The nearest Councillor Best came to addressing retail impact was when she referred to “doom and gloom” predictions made when the Savacentre was approved in 1995, which fears, she said, had never materialised. I wonder whether Councillor Best had spoken to Sydenham traders before making that ill-informed remark, or whether she had noticed the virtual disappearance of the shopping parade at Bell Green, whose demise even the Council now acknowledge as resulting from the opening of the Savacentre.
I have no objection in principle to Councillor Best taking a view in favour of the Bell Green applications. There are arguments either side of the matter. What I do object to is Councillor Best’s apparent failure to equip herself with a proper understanding of the issues. She spoke in favour without displaying any grasp of the detail and without acknowledging or responding to the fears expressed by many local residents, especially about traffic. In my view Councillor Best failed her constituents, and badly so. Her stance in respect of the Bell Green proposals was superficial and did absolutely nothing to promote the aim of a “vibrant Sydenham Road” to which Councillor Best claims to be committed.
Councillor Hastie’s contribution to the debate was of a similar calibre. He argued (laughably) that a Homebase at Bell Green wouldn’t generate a lot of traffic. He went so far as to say that the Bell Green developments would reduce traffic movements in the area. The fact that the Bell Green site will, after development, have over 1,800 car parking spaces and that 77% of visits to the new developments will be made by car, appeared to escape Councillor Hastie’s attention. He also failed to notice that not even the Council claim that there will be an overall reduction in traffic movements on the network.
As for retailing, Councillor Hastie confidently asserted that Sydenham shopkeepers still cling to old habits of lunch-time closing and half day closing - the implication being that if large scale retailing at Bell Green causes Sydenham shopkeepers problems then that’s their own fault. Councillor Hastie’s statements suggested that (a) he has not visited Sydenham Road for 20 years or more, and (b) that he has not read the officer’s reports on the proposals – like the bits that predict significant traffic increases (peak period) across the local network and that detail major trade diversions from local shopping centres. To be fair, Councillor Hastie did spend some time focussing on bicycle security for those travelling to the proposed retail park under pedal power. Fair point. I look forward to the sight of thousands of Homebase shoppers wobbling around the area on bikes laden with planks of wood, bags of cement, garden furniture, and the other bulky products in which the company specialises.
Oh yes, one more point. Councillor Hastie confidently asserted that putting housing on the Phase II site in place of retailing would generate more traffic than the existing retail proposals. Councillor Hastie failed to advance a shred of evidence supporting his breezy (and wrong) generalisation, which reflected a failure on his part to think the arguments through.
Finally, there was Councillor Whiting. He made some relevant points about the drive thru restaurant element of the application and about public security issues. He even acknowledged, unlike Councillor Best, that the Savacentre had killed off the shopping parade at Bell Green. However he went and spoilt his apparent reasonableness by arguing that those who oppose the proposed development at Bell Green had to accept that there is a need to provide modernised forms of retailing in the area. The word ludicrous springs to mind. I hate to break the news to Councillor Whiting, but retail parks have been around for several decades. It is their destructive effects on local shopping centres, and their creation of extra traffic, that resulted several years ago in a tightening of planning laws in order to curb the worst effects of such developments.
Having departed from sensible argument Councillor Whiting went even further down that road by contending that the retail park at Bell Green would not have a damaging impact on Forest Hill shopping centre. He blithely ignored the developer’s own assessment which predicts an annual trade loss of £550,000 for Forest Hill – representing a diversion of 12.5% from current bulky goods trading in the area.
The Sydenham Society has attempted many times to get local councillors to take an informed interest in the Bell Green site and the officials' policy of transforming it into a giant retail park. They have just as consistently chosen to remain ignorant – that goes for all of the councillors in our local wards and not just those who attended the Planning Committee meetings.
It all begs the question of what is the point of our existing local councillors?
Maybe some of our local councillors would like to step forward and explain either why they couldn't be bothered to take an interest in the Bell Green applications, or why, when they did, they were so ill-informed.
Bell Green - the role of our councillors
I should have added my full name to my earlier posting about the behaviour of local councillors over the Bell Green development - which is Bryan Leslie.
-
Cllr David Whiting
- Posts: 1
- Joined: 28 Jul 2005 09:16
- Location: Forest Hill
Bell Green
I shall be on holiday until the 15th August, and when I return intend as my first task to post a full round up of the issues involved in the Bell Green decision as I see them.
I suggest to Brian that it is unhelpful to approach a debate on such a complex subject where the issues are finely balanced on the basis that those who disagree with him are either incompetent or negligent.
d
I suggest to Brian that it is unhelpful to approach a debate on such a complex subject where the issues are finely balanced on the basis that those who disagree with him are either incompetent or negligent.
d
Bell Green -what's the point of our local councillors?
I certainly look forward to Councillor Whiting's reply.
I don't think that I used the words incompetent or negligent to describe the conduct of any of our councillors, but I might have done so had I a less kindly disposition.
Did Councillor Whiting actually read the full contents of the planning officer's reports?
If so, did Councillor Whiting spot the very misleading statement about increases in traffic levels in the planning officer's first report to the Strategic Planning Committee (which statement the Council now admit was wrong)?
Why, at the Committee meeting, did Councillor Whiting ask unfair (and irrelevant) questions of objectors to the proposals - such as, "have you assessed what turnover retailers would need (in Sydenham/Forest Hill) in order to remain viable?"
Why did Councillor Whiting fail to question the developers about their failure to to substantiate their claim that the developments would create 475 jobs?
Why did Councillor Whiting fail to ask questions of officers and the developers about the environmental impact of the proposed developments on Sydenham Road?
I have a sackful of such questions which, when answered, may cast further light on the level of Councillor Whiting's competence (and that of our other local councillors). But I'll wait for Councillor Whiting's promised 'round up' first.
Bryan Leslie
I don't think that I used the words incompetent or negligent to describe the conduct of any of our councillors, but I might have done so had I a less kindly disposition.
Did Councillor Whiting actually read the full contents of the planning officer's reports?
If so, did Councillor Whiting spot the very misleading statement about increases in traffic levels in the planning officer's first report to the Strategic Planning Committee (which statement the Council now admit was wrong)?
Why, at the Committee meeting, did Councillor Whiting ask unfair (and irrelevant) questions of objectors to the proposals - such as, "have you assessed what turnover retailers would need (in Sydenham/Forest Hill) in order to remain viable?"
Why did Councillor Whiting fail to question the developers about their failure to to substantiate their claim that the developments would create 475 jobs?
Why did Councillor Whiting fail to ask questions of officers and the developers about the environmental impact of the proposed developments on Sydenham Road?
I have a sackful of such questions which, when answered, may cast further light on the level of Councillor Whiting's competence (and that of our other local councillors). But I'll wait for Councillor Whiting's promised 'round up' first.
Bryan Leslie
Whilst Cllr Whiting is considering his reply, doesn't he realise that all of the local businesspeople his decisions affect have to attend to their work 24 hours per day even when they are holiday. When I go on holiday, I have to work on the telephone and on my lap top every single day.
Cllr Whiting receives a salary both as a councillor and as a member of Lewisham "Cabinet" which is above the average pay of his constituents. This money comes from hardworking (and often hard pressed) local tax payers.
This is the typical attitude of a group of local councillors who are out of touch with their electorate and whose experience tells them they will get elected whatever they do because they have the name "Labour" after their name on the ballot paper.
Cllr Whiting receives a salary both as a councillor and as a member of Lewisham "Cabinet" which is above the average pay of his constituents. This money comes from hardworking (and often hard pressed) local tax payers.
This is the typical attitude of a group of local councillors who are out of touch with their electorate and whose experience tells them they will get elected whatever they do because they have the name "Labour" after their name on the ballot paper.
-
Paddy Pantsdown
- Posts: 204
- Joined: 1 Oct 2004 10:04
- Location: Venner Road
Same here Nasaroc. Last time I took a three week holiday was 1985 and only because I had cover so my customers would not be affected.nasaroc wrote:Whilst Cllr Whiting is considering his reply, doesn't he realise that all of the local businesspeople his decisions affect have to attend to their work 24 hours per day even when they are holiday. When I go on holiday, I have to work on the telephone and on my lap top every single day
I don't think Tony Blair takes his finger off the button for more than a few hours in 8 years so to be treated like this is contemptible even for a politician.
This guy is taking my money and screwing my business. He is not the only one so I could live with that. What gets my goat is his apparent attitude. Whether it is contempt, indifference or ignorance of how many of us have to work I don't know. To be in a position of power over us is alarming.
As a Labour party member for many years I feel saddened. I just hope a little humble pie may be on the holiday menu.
Bell Green -what's the point of our local councillors?
Kster suggests that I/Nasaroc might mount a political campaign, if we think that we can do any better for Sydenham.
Is Kster volunteering to spearhead such a campaign, or at least take an active role?
Bryan Leslie
Is Kster volunteering to spearhead such a campaign, or at least take an active role?
Bryan Leslie
Whenever there is any direct criticism of local politicians someone always steps up and says "If you think you can do any better, why don't you stand yourself?" I've even had the mayor say this to me.
I know that Kster is coming from a different angle but usually this view is put forward by someone in power who has no answer to your arguments.
I have no wish to become a local councillors and I suspect Bryan feels the same way. But surely we have a right to criticise those who volunteer for this paid role and are failing in their job.
Almost all of our local councillors have been in their jobs for longer than anyone can remember. Now is the time for them to stand aside. Sydenham and Forest Hill is ripe for the taking if one of the other political parties, particularly the Liberal Democrats, get their act together.
I know that Kster is coming from a different angle but usually this view is put forward by someone in power who has no answer to your arguments.
I have no wish to become a local councillors and I suspect Bryan feels the same way. But surely we have a right to criticise those who volunteer for this paid role and are failing in their job.
Almost all of our local councillors have been in their jobs for longer than anyone can remember. Now is the time for them to stand aside. Sydenham and Forest Hill is ripe for the taking if one of the other political parties, particularly the Liberal Democrats, get their act together.
Bell Green- what's the point of our local councillors
Spot on Nasaroc.
To be fair to those councillors whom I've criticised, I should identify our other local councillors whose inaction in respect of the Bell Green proposals mark them out as just as culpable as Councillors Best, Colin Hastie, and Whiting.
Those of our local councillors who stood by and did nothing are:
Councillor Carlisle, Councillor Nisbet, Councillor Jane Hastie, Councillor Till, and Councillor Wise.
If any of those councillors think that I do them an injustice, then maybe they would like to post a response.
Bryan Leslie
Bryan Leslie
To be fair to those councillors whom I've criticised, I should identify our other local councillors whose inaction in respect of the Bell Green proposals mark them out as just as culpable as Councillors Best, Colin Hastie, and Whiting.
Those of our local councillors who stood by and did nothing are:
Councillor Carlisle, Councillor Nisbet, Councillor Jane Hastie, Councillor Till, and Councillor Wise.
If any of those councillors think that I do them an injustice, then maybe they would like to post a response.
Bryan Leslie
Bryan Leslie
I see that Cllr Whiting is managing to post messages on se23.com (see yesterday's posting on Manor Mount) despite the fact that he can't seem to answer questions on Bell Green.
Sensible move. There's an election in the offing. Why waste time with people in SE26 when their votes don't count in his re-election. Tell them you're on holiday - that'll shut them up for a while.
Who said our local councillors aren't smart!
Sensible move. There's an election in the offing. Why waste time with people in SE26 when their votes don't count in his re-election. Tell them you're on holiday - that'll shut them up for a while.
Who said our local councillors aren't smart!