Sydenham Town Forum

JRW wrote: ↑

14 Sep 2020 17:39

Do not feed the troll.....

I just ask that people stick to the facts in a neighbourly way. But you are right, the campaign on social media against the school and the church has been another disappointing element of the campaign.

The campaign against this development has claimed that there were improperly managed risks from World War 2 bombs, asbestos and ground contamination, which were putting children at risk, which later shown to be untrue. There has been a poster campaign around the school vicinity using lurid language ...

I do hope this latest appeal manages to set aside the divisive language and baseless claims which have been a part of this campaign.

Local campaigners always say they want genuinely affordable, car-free, low-emissions social rented housing for local families. Rather than spending millions of taxpayers money with private landlords for poor quality temporary accommodation. Yet when the option presents itself, time and again, reason...

Really disappointed at the hostile and unbalanced stance taken in the Sydenham Society news letter. (Page 4, top link: https://sydenhamsociety.com/documents/print-newsletter-archives/) Why does it fail to mention that this is 100% social housing? Or the housing crisis? The language - “devastate the ...

But that is just one point of view. Individuals are perfectly entitled to hold it but yet again Syd Soc are not taking a balanced approach to questions where the community hold a wide range of different views.

A cynic would suggest it may be about proposing hypothetical housing (at the bottom of the hill, in 20 years time, if a load of businesses and landowners agree to it) while objecting to viable new housing at the top of the hill and anywhere else today.

I am disappointed by the negative and unbalanced tone of the Sydenham Society email bulletin today re the proposed new council homes at Mais House. "Visible from miles away"; "change the character of Sydenham Hill forever"; "immense pressure on local infrastructure"; "residents will spill over into ...

Yes a different site - the warehouse rather than the school - but good news nonetheless. Also: a planning application has been submitted to convert the Regency snooker club and office complex on Spring Hill/Cobbs Corner into a housing. looks very smart. The photos on the application really bring out...

Given the air quality and climate crisis, building dense car free sites close to good transport links is exactly the way forward. Planning neighbourhoods around where people can store their automobiles - a minority pursuit - is very much 1960s thinking and it’s good it’s on the way out

Sounds good to me. I'll be writing to the council to support these. The council really do pay attention to letters of support, if you've ever considered it.

http://www.sydenhamsociety.com/2019/08/ ... ayow-road/

The creator now has an online vendetta against a councillor over the fact the toilets in Home Park haven't been converted into a restaurant (?).

From the people who brought you the asbestos rumour mill.

Happy for the whole thing to be posted.
Makes no difference. No matter how upside down or inside out the aesthetic rules ended up being followed, nothing justifies false claims about children and asbestos.

Despite having been repeatedly and publicly corrected, the false rumours about asbestos were fanned again at council question time on July 24. Question Why did Lewisham allow our Lady & St Philip Neri School to move children into a half-finished, unapproved building, lacking proper documentation? Th...

The campaign claimed children were at risk of asbestos. It appears this was on the basis of wild guess-work and/or a misreading of the paperwork. The council have said this just wasn't true. It's amazing anyone thinks this is a good strategy or a decent way to behave towards their neighbours.

Thanks for posting this JRW. It’s a clear demolition of the campaign against this school. Campaigners said that health and safety processes and sign-offs hadn’t been done properly. They had. Campaigners said children were at risk of asbestos and contamination. They weren’t. Campaigners said the park...

There was a sydenham society news letter about this. Red fonts and exclamation marks. "Shocked and dismayed". Starting to feel like a vendetta, and not terribly neighbourly.

That’s the one, opposite the garage. According to planning documents it was a bomb site and then infilled with a breeze block structure used for storage on the ground floor. The new homes will fill the original perimeter of the Victorian housing.

Folk may have noticed this top permission follows the successful demolition of the breeze-block house at this site in the past fortnight, to give way of a recreation of one of the original Victorian terraces. Permission was originally granted in 2016. Good news.