Sydenham Town Forum

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.

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 Gr...

The Sydenham Society's leadership has found the time to send multiple website, twitter and email updates about the school.

And yet it didn't the time to let its members and neighbours know that it intended to intervene against these homes. Would it not have been neighbourly to do so?

Amusing as we all know that shop previously had had red and even orange signage. And who knows what colour it was painted by Mr Cobbs? Plus the greyhound had previously been bright blue and red.

"Conservation" -- or just an imagined version of the past?

i mean great that it's opening, and better than a shuttered frontage. but the insistence on Farrow and Ball paint schemes is very funny.

Believe it is Parker

For some reason, the designs as originally submitted were changed for the current ones. Perhaps someone complained.

Difference is here: https://m.imgur.com/a/5L0nG1d

Personally I preferred the brighter originals to the battleship grey. Yellow wall tiles are good though.

Naming officials (who may or may not have anything to do with it - who knows?), accusing people of religious hypocrisy, making up stories about children being endangered, throwing around terms like “monstrosity”... none of this will help whatever case there may be on building design.

I think it would be better to keep this planning dispute civil and factual.

Council have now signed off the shopfront designs for Nandos

“These Streets Belong to Us.”

What a curious name. I’d be keen to know who is “us”, which are the streets and in what sense they “belong”.

I see Syd Soc are still talking about the peregrine falcons

Even though the independent experts have already determined that they are NOT an issue for the demolition because they don’t nest there

Strange how people only listen to experts when it suits their personal preferences

What saddens is not that any organisation takes a stance - a perfect entitlement - but a pattern here, and at the school, at Hill Crest of rather tooth and nail tactics, and the use of partial or downright misleading information.

Campaigners need to choose between:

a) The site must be left untouched because of peregrine falcons who cannot be disturbed (disproven by the expert study, but never mind).

or

b) The site can be redeveloped with something else, when they decide the plans meet their liking.

Both can't be true.

Indeed. The Cllrs blog is not a balanced representation of the expert report which concluded the peregrines are essentially irrelevant to the planning process and present no reason not to demolish. It’s unfortunate for the planning process that expert guidance is not reported in a balanced and accur...

Well some people might wonder whether Syd Socs support for housing appears only when they want to further a pet project. And then when a real opportunity occurs to back good housing...

Oh! but what’s this! Another housing site - a single family house, in a traditional style, on an infill site that’s currently a car park that the SydSoc decided was Not Appropriate. Once again, would it not have been polite to consult and inform the local community via the website or news letter? ht...

In this letter, the Sydenham Society acknowledges there is a “housing crisis” in London, and suggests there’s a case for developments in our area of up to 200 houses. https://alanhall.org.uk/2018/07/02/sydenham-society-object-to-bell-green-gas-holders-demolition-and-ask-for-an-article-4-direction/ A...

In other happier news - the planning dept has reformed the way support can be logged, I've noticed. You can describe yourself as being in favour, against or neutral, and doesn't presume that everyone submitting comments is a complainant.

I just think if people are going to launch internet petitions to stop council housing, it should at least be done on clear facts and not speculation or exaggeration. I don’t think that’s unreasonable.

Tim Lund wrote: If instead this turns out to be groundless, does it undermine the credibility of the campaign?

That would indeed raise very substantial questions about the campaign, which I why I expect the basis for the claim will be set out clearly in due course.