Local Libraries May Close

Lewisham Council is considering closing Crofton Park Library, Sydenham Library and three others in the Borough as part of its plan to reduce Council spending by £60 million over three years. Karen Jonason says Crofton Park Library is very well used and she’s set up an online petition and Facebook page to fight the closure.

You can find the petition at www.ipetitions.com/petition/savecroftonparklibrary. Or you can sign the paper petition on September 11th between 11am and 1pm at the corner of Brockley Grove and Brockley Road.

There’s also a petition to save Sydenham Library at www.ipetitions.com/petition/savesydenhamlibrary

The final decision will be made by the Mayor on 17th November.

May Day at Albion Millennium Green

Dacre Lady Morris Dancing


Tree Planting

A History of Croydon Canal

Presentation by Steve Grindlay 

 

https://www.slideshare.net/foresthill/croydon-canal-talk

 

Croydon Canal Talk from foresthill

200th Anniversary of the Croydon Canal

Over 120 people from the Forest Hill Society and Sydenham Society celebrated the 200th anniversary of the opening of the Croydon Canal with a walk from Sydenham station to Forest Hill station, via the last remaining section of the canal in the area in Dacres Wood.

Steve Grindlay provided the historical details with stops along the route and a talk and slide show at the Hob.

We had traditional bargeman's songs along the route provided by Andrew King, including a special song composed for the opening of the Canal 200 years ago!

After the walk many of us went to the Dartmouth Arms, where a traditional bargeman's lunch had been prepared of beef or vegetable stew with beer.

If you have other good photos from the day, please send them in for us to include on the website, and we hope to make the slide show available soon. In the meantime, you can read the article on the history of the Canal from our latest newsletter.

Meet the Manager - Southern Railways

This Thursday, 15th October, Southern Railway are organising one of their regular 'Meet the Manager' sessions on the London Bridge station concourse from 7:30am - 9:30am. We would like as many people as possible to join us to explain to them why cuts to services is unacceptable. We hope that a large number turn up so that Southern Railway management will see the strength of feeling from their passengers. Additionally we have invited the press and local politicians to join us to hear the views of passengers.

Please join us on Thursday in opposing these cuts.

In December 2009 Southern Railways plan to cut our direct evening service (and Sunday service) from Charing Cross, running all trains from London Bridge. This is a well used service and provides a direct connection from the West End after 7:30pm. As this is an off-peak service we reject Southern Railway's claims that there is no capacity through London Bridge.

In May 2010 Southern Railways plan to reduce evening peak services and daytime services from London Bridge by over 30%, from 6 trains per hour to just 4 trains per hour. They will continue to run 6 trains per hour in the morning, meeting the demands on the line, but will not provide a similar service in the evenings, hoping that customers will switch to East London Line services or put up with serious overcrowding.

You can also join over 1,200 other people and sign the petition at http://nototraincuts.notlong.com

Campaign Agianst Rail Cuts hits the front page

Front Page story in the News Shopper

BBC Online article

South London Press

Sign the Petition at http://nototraincuts.notlong.com

NO to Train Cuts

The Forest Hill Society has launched a petition opposing cuts to our train services:

Southern Railways are planning to cut trains to Brockley, Honor Oak Park, Forest Hill, and Sydenham in December 2009 and again in May 2010.

In December 2009 they plan to cut our direct evening service from Charing Cross, running all trains from London Bridge. This is a well used service and provides a direct connection from the West End after 7:30pm. As this is an off-peak service we reject Southern Railway's claims that there is no capacity through London Bridge.

In May 2010 Southern Railways plan to reduce the PEAK SERVICES (as well as off-peak services) from London Bridge by over 30%, from 6 trains per hour to just 4 trains per hour (the same as the off-peak service). They will continue to run 6 trains per hour in the morning, meeting the demands on the line, but will not provide a similar service in the evenings, hoping that customers will switch to East London Line services or put up with serious overcrowding.

We reject the cuts to services through Forest Hill and call on Southern Railways to run the same level of service as they do in September 2009.

We call on rail authorities and local politicians to support our calls to maintain 6 trains per hour in the evening peak and direct services from Charing Cross in the late evenings.

Please sign the petition at http://nototraincuts.notlong.com

Update: BBC Online have covered this campaign on 22nd September. LBC will be covering this issue tomorrow morning.

Loss of Charing Cross Services

Below is the text of a letter sent on behalf of the Forest Hill Society to Southern Railways:

Dear Yvonne,

I read in the Southern Stakeholder Briefing that Southern now intend to stop running direct services between Charing Cross and Forest Hill. On behalf of the Forest Hill Society I wish to express my disappointment at this decision and ask Southern to find ways to reverse this decision before December 2009 when we will lose these services.

In the 2007 draft version of the South London RUS which stated in option 20.4 (p176):
“At present 2 tph direct services operate from Charing Cross to the Sydenham line between around 19:30 and shortly after midnight. These services are very well utilised. On Sundays they operate all day.
Retaining or running additional direct trains to Charing Cross would provide improved journey opportunities for all stations on the Sydenham route and alleviate crowding at London Bridge.”

The final version of the RUS concluded that regarding this option (p145)
“Not recommended for peak services. Further investigation recommended regarding off peak services.”

It is clear that this service, which transports passengers from the West End to South London suburbs, is a well used service at off-peak times. Removing this half-hourly evening service has no practical benefit in reducing congestion or improving journeys for other rail users.

It is recognised that most evening travel in the South London area originates from the West End, not from the London Bridge area. The link from Waterloo East and Charing Cross to Forest Hill provides a convenient service that matches passengers’ travelling patterns. Rather than scrapping these services you should be considering running them all day on Saturday as well as the current Sunday timetable.

The Forest Hill Society is aware that it would not be possible to run these services during peak times, but there is capacity between London Bridge and Charing Cross for the evening and weekend services, as demonstrated by their existence today. Even with the introduction of new services on the South Eastern timetable from Charing Cross, there is still off-peak capacity from Charing Cross that Southern should be utilising for the services via Sydenham.

I would like to ask what further investigations have been carried out into maintaining these off-peak services, as recommended in the RUS? Why have stakeholders not been consulted about this decision prior to the announcement by Southern? And how we can now get Southern to reverse this position before this important service is lost?

I would also like to ask what length the planned services will be from London Bridge in comparison to the services from Charing Cross, as the reduction in the number of carriages on these off-peak services would be another blow to passengers from Forest Hill and our neighbouring areas.

I hope that you will give this issue your urgent and serious consideration so that you can avoid a big disappointment for a large section of your passenger base.

Regards,
Michael Abrahams
Vice-chair, Forest Hill Society

May Bank Holiday Revels on our own Millennium

The Forest Hill and Sydenham societies are joining forces for the Bank Holiday on the 4th of May.
We'll be celebrating spring with a day at a hidden green space on the border of Forest Hill and Sydenham - the Albion Millennium Green.

The Green, formerly a tennis club, was landscaped into an attractive, informal park at the turn of the century under a government scheme to develop 'Millennium Greens.’ Its entrance is at the end of Albion Villas Road (just off Sydenham Park Road), one of the prettiest streets in the area.

It's a haven for flowers and wildlife but it does need a little sprucing up. So we'll start the day with a group tidying up session and then savour the fruits of our labours with a picnic (please bring your own), games and traditional May Day activities for all the family.

Lewisham Misses the Point on the Pools

At the Mayor and Cabinet meeting on the 25th February, the Mayor Sir Steve Bullock decided to go ahead with a further consultation on the options for Forest Hill Pools. The options that he has decided to consult on take a very narrow view of what it is possible to achieve, fail to look at the issue in the round and ignore the strong views of Forest Hill residents who both want to see swimming return to Forest Hill in the near future but also want to see a pool on the pools site.

The options that the Mayor has resolved to consult on are either to:

• Look again at the delivery of Option 2 in 2012 with possible delivery in 2015; or
• Deliver a pool on the Willow Way site in 2012 and to fund it through housing (up to 60 flats) on the existing pools site.

The concern is that both of these options create significant problems for Forest Hill. Under both of these alternatives the pools site is likely to remain empty and semi derelict for a number of years and neither option provides the short to medium term support for the town centre that it desperately needs. Whilst there is an argument that says that Willow Way is not an entirely bad site for a new swimming pool, this isn’t the case if you have a better site in the town centre, ready and waiting.

As you will be aware what the Forest Hill Society had been pushing for is an option that would meet the majority of residents and pools users requirements – and at the same time underpin the Dartmouth Road end of the Town Centre. This focussed on the designs for option 2 but sought to find a way to make it affordable and to deliver it now. To us the advantages of option 2 are clear, we believe it would be a way of uniting the various groups who all have different objectives for the project and developing something of which we could all be proud.

The view is that Option 2 would:

• Provide a high quality sensitive design that would minimise its impact on adjoining residents;
• Meet the requirements of the heritage lobby who want to keep the pools frontage and see them retained in public use;
• Meet the requirements of swimming groups and keen pools users who want a 2 pool swimming facility as soon as possible;
• Help reinforce the town centre and support local traders; and
• Provide the simplest route through Planning as it is sensitive to the adjacent listed buildings and the potential Conservation Area Extension.

In fact at the Mayor and Cabinet meeting Steve Gough, the lead officer for the project said that the Option 2 Pools would be the simplest to deliver, if it could be funded.

The potential problem with funding this option relates back to the Willow Way site and the potential to redevelop it for a mix of residential and employment uses to cross subsidise the pools proposal. At the stakeholder meeting a couple of weeks ago the only barrier presented to achieving this was a planning issue related to the loss of employment on the site. Having looked into this further we believe that there are ways of making an argument for mixed uses on this site that could be in accordance with this policy, particularly as Lewisham are in the process of rewriting their Planning Policy framework at the moment. Key to this is the fact that under both of the options there would be no net loss of employment across the two sites. In fact option 2 might actually increase jobs if commercial and employment is provided on Willow Way alongside the housing, and it would also help support existing and new employment uses in the town centre. So we believe with the right argument this is possible and that therefore option 2 is affordable now, with less planning risk than option 3.

Another issue that has been raised by this process is that The Mayor and elements within the Council seem to believe that there is a silent majority out there that disagree with all of this and don’t care about the location of the pool, the town centre or housing on the pools site and who think the Forest Hill Society and other groups and residents are just being obstructive to swimming. We would really like to hear from a wider range of people as it would be really helpful to know if we are really being that unrepresentative, although we use a variety of methods to get opinions from across all aspects of Forest Hill residents - members and non-members. However, consulting on the 2 consultation options as currently set out will not tell us this as it is not based on fair and reasonable propositions about what may be possible and, as with last summer's consultation, is unlikely to give space for those who disagree with both options to contribute their opinions.

Whilst the consultation options as they appear to stand at the moment do force a difficult decision for residents it seems odd to set up a consultation whose result is going to alienate a large proportion of residents either way, particularly when better alternatives exist.

The one small piece of good news to come out of the meeting was that the Mayor stated that the stakeholder group should continue to be part of the pools project going forward and that a stakeholder meeting should be set up in the near future. This was in contrast to the draft of the officers report that appeared to say that they didn’t like the constituency of the current stakeholder group and that they should get rid of it and put together (a more agreeable) new one. How the Forest Hill Society form part of this group and what our role is going forward we are currently considering. However, we will continue to seek the best solution for the majority of residents and users of Forest Hill.

So the really strange thing about all of this is that the Council don’t seem to want to find a solution that could meet the requirements of the widest range of residents and swimmers, they want to press ahead with a scheme with significant disadvantages when considered in the round. In contrast to the view put across by the Mayor that this is a “choice between buildings or swimming”, there is another way, that could be delivered within the Council's £9.5m budget, that could be delivered soon, and that from the feedback we have had a great many people would support – they just don’t want to give any of us the opportunity to be consulted on it.

Please get in touch with us if you have views about these options or the pools project and particularly about the view the Forest Hill Society should take going forward.

Speech to Mayor and Cabinet

Below is the text of the speech made to Mayor and Cabinet meeting on Wednesday by Hilary Satchwell on behalf of the Forest Hill Society:

1) I’m speaking as a representative of the Forest Hill Society, and with the backing of the Tewkesbury Lodge Estate Residents’ Association, the Sydenham Society and Save the Face of Forest Hill Pools. I’m happy that we’ve been able to find a common view on the latest proposals from the Council.

2) Thank you for a report that provides some new ideas. We are really glad you have restated that you want a pool in Forest Hill – we REALLY want one too! We want a pool IN Forest Hill. Forest Hill Town Centre feels as if it is dying as a result of the closure of the pool three years ago. The report says that Option 3 could give us a pool sooner, but we would lose of one of the town centre’s key ‘anchors’ as identified in the 2003 Urban Development Framework. We have to find a way around this problem. Rushing ahead with newly conceived option three cannot be right. If you consult with such a strong preference for Option three without fully exploring the alternatives we fear there will be another fiasco.

3) We very strongly support option 2, but not as a pipe-dream for 2015. We must work together to find a way of delivering this now. Option 2 has many benefits, including good design, retention of ‘civic’ use and the pools frontage. It would revitalise the town centre and protect employment. It has minimal impact on neighbours. Our online survey and other feedback shows that it is supported by the overwhelming majority of residents. We believe that this option not only has the support of the majority of Forest Hill residents but also Council Members and Officers. It has the support of the swimming lobby and the Heritage lobby. We can’t shelve this option for three years. Nobody can accept that a solution that was first presented to the stakeholders just 3 weeks ago can’t be delivered before 2015.

The location of the pools is really important. Willow Way is 600 metres further from the centre of Forest Hill and is in Sydenham. Its catchment area overlaps The Bridge and Crystal Palace but is further from Honor Oak, Perry Vale and East Dulwich, which have no modern swimming facilities. Less people in Lewisham would be within a kilometre of a swimming pool if you move the site to Willow Way. We are concerned that a pool in Willow Way would be hidden in a back street and further from a wide range of public transport. This location will not attract custom or support long term viability. Lewisham’s leisure strategy and national guidelines recognise the importance of town centre locations for the provision of leisure and we are lucky to have a great site on Dartmouth Road!

4) We understand the constraints of planning policy and the important principle of not losing employment land from the Borough. As presented, option 2 and option 3 create exactly the same number of jobs from the pools. There would be NO NET loss of employment under option 2, and possibly an increase, if Willow Way included live work, or commercial and residential uses. On the other hand, option 3 would seriously threaten jobs in the town centre as a result of relocation of the pool. This cannot be the intention – it does not make sense to quote planning policy against Option 2 when it would actually increase employment opportunities within the borough. The issue needs further consideration and thought so that Willow Way can be used to cross subsidise the proposals.

5) We are concerned that the planning constraints of option 3 on Willow Way have been understated. Gaining planning approval for a significant leisure use outside of a defined town centre is contrary to both Lewisham Council Policy and national planning policy statement 6 on Town Centres. At the same time, putting high density housing on the Pools site would materially affect the setting of 2 listed buildings. We haven’t had the privilege of seeing the planning advice received on the proposals but know that Planning isn’t usually such a black and white issue as has been presented.

6) We are also concerned that the problems of delivering housing on the Pools site have been grossly understated. Delivering 60 flats on an existing leisure site in the current economic downturn and against public opposition will be difficult. It must be easier to construct a robust and sensible argument for the delivery of a mixed use development on Willow Way and a New Pool on an existing leisure site in the Town Centre. Option 2 only requires an increased range of uses on one site whilst option 3 needs a change of use on both. Some employment on Willow Way and a new leisure facility on Dartmouth Road will regenerate the Town Centre. The benefits significantly outweigh the case for leisure employment only on Willow Way, more empty shops on Dartmouth Road and high risk, high density housing.

7) Option 3, as the only recommendation to be delivered in the short term in this report, is the wrong one. Issues are not being considered in the round and it is not yet quite the right time for another consultation. Both Option 2 in 2015 and option 3 in 2011 would kill the town centre at a time of great opportunity with the coming of the East London Line. Pursuing Option 3 raises significant issues including, without being melodramatic, the future of Forest Hill as a Town Centre.

8) When it is right time to consult please make sure that the consultation asks open, informative and useful questions. The answers will then be useful if something unforeseen happens. We need a consultation that provides useful information about what people want from the pools project, in addition to a response on specific options, if that is what you think you need. We don’t need a tick box form for the 2 ‘closed’ options. We want a much more participatory approach involving stakeholders and residents. We don’t need another closed consultation with stakeholders kept in the dark. Let’s work together on this to deliver a first class leisure facility on the Pools site as soon as we can.

9) We understand that there is a proposal being developed for an arts centre in Louise House and would like your support for it, at the very least by financially supporting a feasibility study. We need the creative and youth oriented activities in Forest Hill that this proposal could bring.

10) Please consider what the Community has said and find a way to make option 2 a reality in the short term. This is what the Community wants and this is what your Officers recognise is the best option. Waiting until 2012 to revisit the options is not acceptable. We have already waited three years.

Thank you.

Redberry Grove development approved

Despite the objections of the Forest Hill Society, the Sydenham Society, Councillor John Russell, and over 60 local residents, the planning committee tonight accepted the proposed development in Redberry Grove.

Only three of the councillors turned up to the planning meeting - John Paschoud, Sue Luxton, and Paul Maslin - the minimum number needed to hold the meeting.

Despite a number of good arguments put forward by Michael Abrahams on behalf of the objectors, and by John Russell as a ward councillor, there was little discussion from the committee of their reasonable objections.

Sue Luxton was most concerned about making the modern building the highest environmental sustainability rating of any building in Lewisham, something that the developer, to their credit, was happy to accept.

There was some concern about possible loss of biodiversity and Sue Luxton recommended that the decision was deferred until after a biodiversity report was completed. However, this was overruled by John Paschoud's casting vote as chair. What biodiversity has been lost we shall not know, despite evidence of deer close to the site from the 1990s. If you visit Albion Millennium Green please keep an eye out for deer the size of dogs hiding the bushes. And if you see one, take a photo and email it to us!

The councillors showed no concern for the Sydenham Park conservation area, not even discussing the effect this modern building will have on the character of the conservation area. Lewisham council policy towards conservation areas appears to be that any modern building is acceptable as long as it is energy efficient and we can expect to see more buildings of this type in some of our most historic streets (of which Redberry Grove is certainly one).

Despite the defeat it is worth noting that the local residents fought a good campaign against this development, to protect their streets, so worthy of conserving, and to protect the adjacent area of nature conservation.

New Blog on the History of Forest Hill and Sydenham

Some great photos and history from Steve Grindlay on this new blog site: http://sydenhamforesthillhistory.blogspot.com

Planning Application Redberry Grove

Below is the text of the Forest Hill Society submission regarding planning application DC/08/69263/X, 4 Redberry Grove.

On behalf of the Forest Hill Society I wish to object to the proposed development at 4 Redberry Grove which we believe is out of context for the local area.

Redberry Grove is very special road in the Sydenham Park conservation area and the development of a building that is substantially out of character will have a significant affect on the nature of the conservation area in close proximity to an area of nature conservation - Albion Millennium Green which has only recently been designated as such. By developing a new backland development in such close proximity to Albion Millennium Green we are concerned that it will have a negative effect on this area of nature conservation and access to it. Additionally 3 Redberry Grove is a listed building and again this proposed development would negatively impact on the context of this listed building.

Whilst the design and the materials used for this building are state of the art and make a very interesting modern building these are totally out of context within the conservation area, which is primarily one of large Victorian houses which have been well preserved due to the conservation area. It would be a great shame to spoil this area of outstanding Victorian architecture by the discordant nature of this development.

Policy URB 5 sections c-g should be taken into account when considering this development and we believe the council should reject this application.

Perry Vale residents locked out of the station

The latest news on increased accessibility for Forest Hill station is that when Oyster readers come into operation, in January 2009, the gate to Perry Vale will be kept shut throughout the day, only opening during evening peaks. During those evening peaks members of staff will be on hand to read every persons' Oyster card with handheld readers (from 3pm until the end of the peak).

This system would create delays for passengers exiting the Perry Vale exit as a member of staff checks every Oyster card. It is questionable whether staff would be willing to stand in the rain, snow, or freezing/boiling temperatures for hours at a time and trains every five minutes. In reality this system is likely to lead to the gates being closed and for passengers to get soaked while the cross the railway twice (over the bridge and then through the underpass).

Southern Railways have started work on implementation by making space for the gates at the ticket hall and then the barriers need to be installed by TfL. But the plans for the southbound platform are as described above.

The Forest Hill Society, along with Councillor Paschoud, are putting pressure on Southern Railways and others involved in the Oyster implementation to avoid shutting the gate. There are two alternatives that we would prefer:

1. Oyster reader available at the Perry Vale exit for pre-pay customers to swipe in and out, similar to the system in place until recently at New Cross Gate. This would allow the exit to remain open as it does today.
   
2. A new exit onto Perry Vale car park providing staffed ticket barriers all day and an accessible entrance to the station on the Perry Vale side of the station.

Further problems will occur at Sydenham and Brockley where the exits on the northbound (Sydenham) and southbound (Brockley) platforms will be remotely operated for disabled passengers only. Of course once these gates are opened there will be nobody to stop other passengers flooding through the gates. Honor Oak Park station should be fairly straightforward as a single set of barriers can be placed in the ticket hall.

We will keep you updated regarding progress on this matter.