I recently received a notification from Lewisham Council of the following planning application:
The construction of electronic tickets machines and gating systems, with a steel and glass covered shelter with perforated roller shutter door on the UP platform (London-bound) and in Peak Hill Gardens, at Sydenham Railway Station.
Like many other residents in the Sydenham area, I was pleased that a permanent solution was being put forward for access to this side of the station. As I live in Peak Hill Gardens, when the gate was locked a few weeks ago, I found the detour to the station ticket office very inconvenient. So I am in favour of keeping access open in Peak Hill Gardens.
However, this new development at the station comes at an envronmental cost which, if I am correct, most people may not be aware of.
Anyone interested in this, should take the time to check in detail the plans on the council's website and quote application no. DC/08/69571
To construct the new ticket barriers etc, 2 of the very mature Lime trees will have to be cut down.
The 2 trees in question are those which you see in front of you when entering Peak Hill Gardens. Imagine the view without them.
As this side of the station is in a Conservation Area, how can this be allowed to happen? What exactly does Conservation Area mean to Lewisham Council. Not much I think.
Living in the street, the trees are not only attractive to look at but block out a very ugly footbrige and also absorb noise from the trains.
If these plans require that these trees must go, then I am totally against this planning proposal. I will be urging other residents in street to do the same. There must be an alternative solution.
If you feel the same way about this, please contact Lewisham Council without delay and make your feeling known.
SYDENHAM STATION: NEW TICKET BARRIER IN PEAK HILL GARDENS
Lee the plan shows "new tree species to be agreed" just to the side of the tree to be removed, which suggests that they are not simply going to remove the tree without replanting anything. I'd suggest that you push for more clarity over the type of tree/re-planting scheme, rather than completely opposing the proposal.
Thank you LeeC for posting that interesting issue with the 2 trees.
I bet we will have no response regarding the sacrifice of those beautiful trees from all those enthusiasts who wanted the gate open at all costs. Well now you know the cost. I hope you are happy Nasacroc and co. I do hope you, along with all those other dogooders from the Sydenham Society will be able to explain why you can get on your hobby horse about 'saving' the Greyhound but can turn a blind eye to the destruction of those trees. Shame on you.
Still at least the trees wont be damaging the paintwork of all those cars belong to commuters when they park in Peak Hill Gardens, once they have been chopped down.
LeeC - We would be happy to sign any petition and help in rallying the other residents of PHG against this blatent desctruction of those trees.
Funny that local residents would not even have had notice of this planning application, if we hadn't complained that we had not been consulted in this process. No planning application signs had been posted, etc. The agent was in receipt of those notices for the local residents, but these had not been delivered we are reliably informed by Steve Isaacson from Lewisham Council. We only got them through the door once we pointed this omission out.
I bet we will have no response regarding the sacrifice of those beautiful trees from all those enthusiasts who wanted the gate open at all costs. Well now you know the cost. I hope you are happy Nasacroc and co. I do hope you, along with all those other dogooders from the Sydenham Society will be able to explain why you can get on your hobby horse about 'saving' the Greyhound but can turn a blind eye to the destruction of those trees. Shame on you.
Still at least the trees wont be damaging the paintwork of all those cars belong to commuters when they park in Peak Hill Gardens, once they have been chopped down.
LeeC - We would be happy to sign any petition and help in rallying the other residents of PHG against this blatent desctruction of those trees.
Funny that local residents would not even have had notice of this planning application, if we hadn't complained that we had not been consulted in this process. No planning application signs had been posted, etc. The agent was in receipt of those notices for the local residents, but these had not been delivered we are reliably informed by Steve Isaacson from Lewisham Council. We only got them through the door once we pointed this omission out.
I think it is unfair to blame the Sydsoc "dogooders" and in particular Nasaroc for the destruction of the trees. Their campaigning was in respect of the fate of the gate which you admit was a convenience for you and your fellow neighbours - not a campaign to kill the trees. It is unfortunate that the trees will go. But as Lee points out, perhaps energy could be directed toward having the right kind of tree planted.
I fail to see where I said in my post above that I found the gate convenient.
One of the points I was trying to make that has obviously gone above your head or you just chose to ignore was the sheer hypocrisy of saving the Greyhound, which has little merit save for the tiled bar area, and the total disregard for those trees. Lets now see if the Sydenham Society will fight tooth and nail to save them. I doubt it very much.
We are now stuck with the Greyhound, in all its dilapitated state, an eyesore at the gateway to Sydenham, for years to come. It now looks very much like we will have the trees destroyed. Great - our consciences saved because there is going to be something planted in their place. These are mature trees. What good would a couple of saplings be, planted for good measure?
I am curious to know what the reaction of the Sydenham Society will now be - can they still puff out their chests and pretend to be saviours of the gate? Of course they will, but they now know at what cost. They will say it is justified because Lewisham are going to plant something in the place of the trees.
Unfortunately, some people are just full of their own self importance.
One of the points I was trying to make that has obviously gone above your head or you just chose to ignore was the sheer hypocrisy of saving the Greyhound, which has little merit save for the tiled bar area, and the total disregard for those trees. Lets now see if the Sydenham Society will fight tooth and nail to save them. I doubt it very much.
We are now stuck with the Greyhound, in all its dilapitated state, an eyesore at the gateway to Sydenham, for years to come. It now looks very much like we will have the trees destroyed. Great - our consciences saved because there is going to be something planted in their place. These are mature trees. What good would a couple of saplings be, planted for good measure?
I am curious to know what the reaction of the Sydenham Society will now be - can they still puff out their chests and pretend to be saviours of the gate? Of course they will, but they now know at what cost. They will say it is justified because Lewisham are going to plant something in the place of the trees.
Unfortunately, some people are just full of their own self importance.
Gilly, what exactly do you hope to achieve by being so rude and using such sweeping generalisations?
I am in favour of the gate. I have a strong environmental conscience, but I am also a realist - sometimes mature trees have to be removed to allow for building work, it's inevitable. I would be keen to understand the details of the new trees - nothing on the plan mentions "saplings", and I would suggest it appropriate to (during the planning process) push for a replanting scheme that is appropriate given that it is fully mature trees that are being removed. It is possible to come up with a replanting scheme that is sensitive to the environment and minimises the impact of the trees' removal.
You obviously have some gripe with the Sydenham Society, but I think you need to remember that not everyone on this forum is a member of the society, and not everyone who is in favour of the gate was part of trying to save the Greyhound.
I am in favour of the gate. I have a strong environmental conscience, but I am also a realist - sometimes mature trees have to be removed to allow for building work, it's inevitable. I would be keen to understand the details of the new trees - nothing on the plan mentions "saplings", and I would suggest it appropriate to (during the planning process) push for a replanting scheme that is appropriate given that it is fully mature trees that are being removed. It is possible to come up with a replanting scheme that is sensitive to the environment and minimises the impact of the trees' removal.
You obviously have some gripe with the Sydenham Society, but I think you need to remember that not everyone on this forum is a member of the society, and not everyone who is in favour of the gate was part of trying to save the Greyhound.
surely there must be another solution to the problem. chopping down the trees is not pleasant, and stopping the construction fo the gates will lead to loss of access for people who would find it difficult if not impossible to use the foot bridge.
i think it's shit how they want to chop down two beautiful trees. i havn't had a look at the plans, but i wouldn't be surprised if it's just so they can get a digger in there or something stupid like that.
gillyjp, stop being so offensive and dismissive with regards to the sydenham society (i'm not a member btw). they have done far more good for the community than bad. you should try and work with them. i bet they could help you come up with an alternative to present to the council to help prevent chopping down the trees.
i think it's shit how they want to chop down two beautiful trees. i havn't had a look at the plans, but i wouldn't be surprised if it's just so they can get a digger in there or something stupid like that.
gillyjp, stop being so offensive and dismissive with regards to the sydenham society (i'm not a member btw). they have done far more good for the community than bad. you should try and work with them. i bet they could help you come up with an alternative to present to the council to help prevent chopping down the trees.
The problem is usually that it's incredibly hard to fit constructions like this in so as to avoid underground services and also avoid damaging tree roots(I'm a civil engineer so have some experience of this). Getting the digger in isn't the problem. I'd need to properly review the site drawings to form a full opinion in this case, but just looking at the proposed plan quickly, it definitely looks like at least one tree would need to go and I'm not surprised they've deemed it necessary to remove two.
It is far from ideal to have to remove trees, but believe me - if the designer is worth their weight (which I hope they are), it's not a decision that's gone into lightly - it's rarely ever the easiest option.
It is far from ideal to have to remove trees, but believe me - if the designer is worth their weight (which I hope they are), it's not a decision that's gone into lightly - it's rarely ever the easiest option.
I think that Natbeuk is right - I've looked at the plans carefully and there is no way to avoid the loss of one tree. However the tallest trees - the ones that screen the footbridge and which are in your sightline as you walk down Peak Hill Gardens - will remain. So long as a mature replacement is provided then the loss is mitigated. In my opinion lime trees aren't the most precious of trees - their leaves are very sticky and when these fall in the autumn they leave a residue. They are not a rare species and are common in London (hence the common name London lime!) Why not concentrate on asking Lewisham for a good-looking replacement for one of those lost.
not really, I keep posting it because:natbeuk wrote:
Don't you get bored of typing the same posts over and over again bensonby???
a) I have nothing better to do
and
b) I havn't seen a good argument that actually demonstrates that the status quo was unsatisfactory and that these gates are necessary.
natbeuk and big ben, you both are talking real sense and i agree with you.
i'm just trying to save gillyjp the £8.99 she might want to look at spending on the famous book "how to win friends and influence people".
bensonby the only real argument against the status quo is loss of revenue, and unfortunately the rail companies have to look to run at a profit. it's both pointless and counterproductive to keep going on about it.
i'm just trying to save gillyjp the £8.99 she might want to look at spending on the famous book "how to win friends and influence people".
bensonby the only real argument against the status quo is loss of revenue, and unfortunately the rail companies have to look to run at a profit. it's both pointless and counterproductive to keep going on about it.
I don't think anyone wanted the gate open "at all costs". I think people looked at the pros and cons and decided that the pros outweighed the cons. I think it attracted a lot of strong feeling due to Southern taking a retrograde step on station access purely to protect their revenue. Just because people were very angry with Southern, I don't think that should be mistaken for a lack of consideration for the wider impacts of having the gate open. If losing two trees was an inevitable consequence of having the gate open, and that had been known at the time, I'm sure people would have factored that in to their considerations.gillyjp wrote:I bet we will have no response regarding the sacrifice of those beautiful trees from all those enthusiasts who wanted the gate open at all costs. Well now you know the cost. I hope you are happy Nasacroc and co. I do hope you, along with all those other dogooders from the Sydenham Society will be able to explain why you can get on your hobby horse about 'saving' the Greyhound but can turn a blind eye to the destruction of those trees. Shame on you.
As it stands, I think we have to know what our options are - are there any alternative plans which could include the same facilities without loss of the trees? If these facilities weren't provided, would Southern maintain the status-quo with a manned gate? What will happen when TfL take control of the station?
There a number of benefits to having these facilities on the northbound platform, not least of which is the fact that it will enable the station to be made more secure and help prevent loitering and anti-social behaviour in PHG, which I understood to be one of the key concerns of local residents.
We're talking about plans to cut down two trees here - not to slaughter slaughter two first-born children! Stop agonising about it, and get on with it.
Jeus, they can always be replaced, if that's what people really want - it's not as if these trees are part of an acient forest or anything. They were once just planted-out saplings, and are eminently replaceable.
Have you seen how many trees southern / network rail cut down between New Cross Gate and Forest Hill? Now that's naughty - virtually a linear whole wood taken down. If you care about London's trees being cut down, make a fuss about that. Sense of proportion, people.
Jeus, they can always be replaced, if that's what people really want - it's not as if these trees are part of an acient forest or anything. They were once just planted-out saplings, and are eminently replaceable.
Have you seen how many trees southern / network rail cut down between New Cross Gate and Forest Hill? Now that's naughty - virtually a linear whole wood taken down. If you care about London's trees being cut down, make a fuss about that. Sense of proportion, people.
