Would you care to elaborate on the "significant examples" where SydSoc and FHSoc have made representations outside their geographic domains?
Apologies - belatedly realised I had not responded to this very reasonable request.
My examples are focused on each and every phase of the Bell Green Development.
That development was started in 1993.
I have written on here and on se26.life and se23.life about the key issues on the final phase for which the outcome was a rejection by the planning committee.
FOHSoc and SydSoc campaigned against the final phase and additionally SydSoc successfully moved to have the Bell Green Gasholder listed locally. I will not repeat the details here - the posts remain on various threads.
However neither of the societies has been able to bring forward a single Bellingham resident with whom they consulted. And despite the existence of a 570+ signatory petition I cannot find a neighbour or friend who either signed or knew of this petition.
The key loss from this rejection was for two significant mitigation factors to be lost to the immediate neighbours of the site. And most importantly those most affected by the delivery or non-delivery of benefits are Bellingham ward residents and particularly residents around the streets close to the Perry Rise/Perry Hill traffic lights..
The proposal contained provision to open access to the rear of Livesey Hall and provide more parking spaces there to patrons of that facility. On funeral days near-neighbours are prevented from enjoying basic amenities such as parking and/or drop-offs caused by the influx of patrons' cars.
Secondly there were proposals to introduce SCOOT measures to provide improved traffic movements through Perry Rise and Perry Hill - now also lost.
I cannot establish whether either society even understood these issues never mind considered their importance.
My neighbours and I have waited since the mid-1990's for the final phase to introduce these mitigation measures.