Town Team Volunteer Brainstorming Sessions

[sisterofwookie]

Kirkdale Village Traders & Community Group Town Team Volunteer Brainstorming Sessions.

Roll up! Roll up!

To all those who have kindly expressed an interest in volunteering your time & skills to the various sub committees we are holding the following brainstorming sessions we would love to see you there!

Art, Green fingers & Beautification

17th May 2012, 6:30pm-8:30pm, The Bricklayers Arms, 189 Dartmouth Road, Sydenham SE26 4QY

Forest Hill Assemblies

21st May 2012 – 7pm -9pm, The Hornimans Museum, 100 London Road, London SE23 3PQ (there will be a tour of the Museum before the Assembly, probably around 6.45pm)

Social Media, Newsletter & Marketing

24th May 2012, 6:30pm-8:30pm, The Bricklayers Arms, 189 Dartmouth Road, Sydenham SE26 4QY

Events, Socials & Fundraising

31st May 2012, 6:30pm-8:30pm, The Bricklayers Arms, 189 Dartmouth Road, Sydenham SE26 4QY

Like our Kirkdale Village Face Book page http://www.facebook.com/kirkdalevillage for up to the minute Kirkdale Village News

[louisecbrooks]

I'm leading the Marketing, Social Media & Newsletter group that is meeting on 24th. I'm looking for designers (graphic & web) and PR folk.

Also, for the Arts Committee we'd be really interested in engaging any budding street artists.

Drop me an email on louise@bakelondon.co.uk if any of that interests you.

[sisterofwookie]

The first Brainstorming Session is TOMORROW Thursday 17th May 2012, 6:30pm-8:30pm, The Bricklayers Arms, 189 Dartmouth Road, Sydenham SE26 4QY

Art, Green fingers & Beautification - all those who are interested and have ideas come along...

All those who moan about the condition of the Kirkdale & the Dartmouth Road junction - make sure you come as this a chance to get something happening!

[marymck]

I may not be able to attend, due to pressure of work.

I would like to submit to the agenda a full and frank discussion of all wooster and stock's drastic set of planning applications in our area.

I move for a change of name from the divisive, twee and inaccurate kirkdale village.

For the benefit of those residents who can't attend please can you post on here a breakdown of how the council tax money you were granted has been spent.

It was disappointing that no one from your organization did so at the last forest hill ward assembly did so, when the other funded groups did.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[leenewham]

I went to he last Kirkdale meeting. Without Jenny driving it I doubt that it would have happened. She lives and works locally and it just so happens that the business is an estate agents. If she worked in a corner shop I get the impression that she would still be doing this. But it isn't just her, lots of traders and local people are trying to improve Kirkdale. While I don't like the village tag (I dont think it will stick), I don't think it's a deal breaker and we should support the efforts to improve Kirkdale. Unlike Sydenham Road which seems to be falling further and further behind without any real traders group , I genuinely believe that Kirkdale is set for genuine improvement if they can keep the momentum (which is very hard to do).

I will try to come along tonight, but I am in meetings nearly all day and young, cute, 7 month old master Thomas is more important to me right now, but I wish them all the best.

I share some of your concerns about the Woodsman (aside from changing the name, but we tend to agree to disagree on naming issues!) and obviously the village aspect, but in reality everyone will continue to call it Kirkdale, no signs are changing and it's really just the name of the steering group. It does seem to have engaged a number of local people.

Everyone involved (including Louise at Bake London, local traders etc) should be given our support and full encouragement but should also be prepared to have some of the ideas challenged.

[Tim Lund]

I feel much the same about this as Lee - and in particular everything he says about Jenny.

I may also not be able to attend, so here's my tupp'orth.

As argued on another thread recently, initiatives to improve a shopping area go much better when aligned with the commercial interests of landlords. Wooster and Stock are the obvious lead here.

Wooster and Stock did indeed come out earlier with (IMHO) a hideous proposal for redeveloping their current offices - 109 -11 Kirkdale - which was also a massive overdevelopment. OTOH, their proposals for replacing an existing outbuilding and garage with a residential unit within The Woodman site, are within London Plan limits. The proposal has been refused as being an "overbearing and unneighbourly form of development ", but it is not clear that it is any more so than the Greeyhoud development. The refusal has been appealed, and as Dorian wrote, the grounds for refusal seem very weak.

It is time to start working together constructively. The Sydenham Society - I believe Marymck is still on its planning committee - should accept that The Woodman is not going to reopen as a pub, and show - as it has with the Greyhound - that it can facilitate acceptable residential development.

In the same spirit of working constructively with commercial interests, Wooster & Stock and other traders in the area should also budget for paying a properly qualified gardener to work with any group of green-fingered volunteers who come forward to help in any street beautification. As I wrote earlier

Gardening to a reasonable, reliable standard depends on people who know what they are doing and can commit to it. They will probably have invested a fair bit of their time in learning what to do, and getting proper qualifications. So, whether it's your own garden you care about, or the making the space outside your shop front attract customers, please consider paying people to do it well.

Let's see some of the profit Wooster & Stock will make from its development of The Woodman's outbuildings used not only to make the street scene more attractive, but also boost local employment.

[marymck]

Wooster and Stock did indeed come out earlier with (IMHO) a hideous proposal for redeveloping their current offices - 109 -11 Kirkdale - which was also a massive overdevelopment. OTOH, their proposals for replacing an existing outbuilding and garage with a residential unit within The Woodman site, are within London Plan limits. The proposal has been refused as being an "overbearing and unneighbourly form of development ", but it is not clear that it is any more so than the Greeyhoud development. The refusal has been appealed, and as Dorian wrote, the grounds for refusal seem very weak.

The opinions I'm posting here are mine as a resident of Kirkdale, and do not necessarily represent the views of other members of the Sydenham Society.

1. The plans for 109-111 Kirkdale have been resubmitted. See thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7738 and are now under consideration by the Council. In my opinion (as a local resident) they are still out of scale and still trying to cram a quart into a pint pot.

2. In the other thread, Dorian wrote that she felt the Council's grounds for refusal for the demolishing of the old stables & construction of a new building (currently at Appeal) looked weak because they werea single issue. As I pointed out on the thread, they weren't a single issue but were:

The proposed dwelling, by reason of its location, size and design would have a detrimental impact on the streetscene generally as well as being an overbearing and unneighbourly form of development and have a negative impact on the former public house at The Woodman, 110 Kirkdale, which is a 'defined heritage asset' and proposed locally-listed building, contrary to saved policies URB 3 Urban Design, URB 6 Extensions and Alterations, URB 16 New Development, Changes of Use and Alterations to Buildings in Conservation Areas, HSG 4 Residential Amenity, HSG 5 Layout and Design of New Residential Development and HSG 8 Backland In-fill Development of the Council's adopted Unitary Development Plan (2004) and Objective 10: Protect and enhance Lewisham's character and Policies 15: High Quality Design for Lewisham & Policy 16: Conservation Areas, Heritage Assets and the Historic Environment of the Core Strategy (2011).
2) The proposed dwelling would have a detrimental impact on the amenities of the adjoining residential properties in Fransfield Grove and Halifax Street and provide a substandard level of accommodation external amenity space for future occupiers of the new dwelling, contrary to Policy 3.5 Quality and Design of Housing of the London Plan (July 2011) and saved policies URB 3 Urban Design, HSG 4 Residential Amenity; HSG 5 Layout and Design of New Residential Development; HSG 7 Gardens and HSG 8 Backland and In-fill Development of the Council's adopted Unitary Development Plan (2004) and Objective 10: Protect and Enhance Lewisham's Character, Policy 15: High Quality Design for Lewisham & Policy 16: Conservation Areas, Heritage Assets and the Historic Environment of the adopted Core Strategy (2011).

I think the confusion sets in because Wooster and Stock have so many planning applications in for Kirkdale. Incidentally, the same thing happened with a huge garage building and car port that has been constructed in Mount Gardens (not by W&S, I hasten to add) so many applications (I've just counted 12) were submitted piecemeal (digging up the possibly the last remaining apple tree from the old orchard, changing this, changing that, moving locations, etc, etc.) that the Council missed the fact that, because the garage had been resited too close to a property in Panmure Road, the builder built it from breeze block, rather than the timber frame that had been approved. It's also massively out of scale, because it's been resited on built up land, it and cars parked on a car port now dominate the back gardens of Mount Ash Road).

[Tim Lund]

1. The plans for 109-111 Kirkdale have been resubmitted. See thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7738 and are now under consideration by the Council. In my opinion (as a local resident) they are still out of scale and still trying to cram a quart into a pint pot.

I couldn't find the application DC/12/79489/X that you referred to on the Lewisham Planning web site - only the orignal application DC/09/72209/X with the final line "This case has no appeals against it". What am I missing?

[marymck]

Dorian - I'm so sorry for the gender realignment. Tim's kindly pointed out you're a "he" not a "she". Please accept my apologies.

[marymck]

I couldn't find the application DC/12/79489/X that you referred to on the Lewisham Planning web site - only the orignal application DC/09/72209/X with the final line "This case has no appeals against it". What am I missing?

Sorry Tim - completely my fault. I'd mis-typed the planning application number. I'll edit my original post. It should read: DC/12/79479/X

Here (I hope) is the link ...

http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk/LEWIS-XS ... mkey=65632

Thanks for pointing this out. I'm not doing too well today, realigning Dorian and making typos. Splitting focus with too many things going on, I guess.

[sisterofwookie]

http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.507226185970920.137791.208493962510812&type=3#!/photo.php?fbid=507226305970908&set=a.507226185970920.137791.208493962510812&type=3&theater

The kirkdale Village planters have arrived - with thanks to the traders and the green fingered crew!