Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Passed a poster earlier about potential redevelopment and found this article: https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/exclusive-campaign-against-infilling-gains-momentum-as-brenchley-gardens-and-bells-gardens-estates-protest-against-plans/


Interested in views - pro and con. We need more homes.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/282382-brenchley-gardens-development/
Share on other sites

Please support saving parts of Brenchley Gardens from development, everything helps bounce the council's plans. It's happening in other boroughs, locally in Lewisham, at Greystead Road and between Horniman Drive and Honor Oak Road. Other parts of Forest Hill have also been identified for potential development. The louder the council's hear residents objecting to their plans the more chance their is of these plans being over turned.


Please, Please help in anyway you can to save the green space. Once it's been developed the green space is lost forever.

There is a bigger picture here. We need more affordable/social housing. Where do we put it, particularly if there are not enough brown field sites. This is not to say that Brenchley Gardens is the right or wrong place. It would be good to get other views.


I posted a thread some time ago about the continual development of private houses. It just seems wrong that some cannot afford bricks and a roof, yet others are extending left, right and centre. I understand that low interest rates and poor return on many forms of investment make housing even more attractive. But still feels rather perverse.

Southwark seem fairly cavalier at taking green spaces away from poorer estates, with flats and no gardens while giving extra space to those with large front and back gardens only yards away from parks. Brenchley, Deverell Street, Bells Garden Esate, Woodland Rd Esate...
If you want all the benefits (to many, not all) of living in London you?ll have to accept that the people who provide some of those benefits (in the shape of services) then you can?t deny them a place to live. Teachers, nurses, train drivers, beauticians, restaurant owners and others have to live somewhere. I?d like to see four-storey developments as standard, like in Paris or Barcelona or Glasgow.
Nigello, it is the residents living in these estates that are having their green spaces, children's playgrounds and community halls built on, denying teachers, nurses, etc access to space, light and places for their children to play. I suggest you do some research about the 'stop the infill' resident run campaign.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Money has to be raised in order to slow the almost terminal decline of public services bought on through years of neglect under the last government. There is no way to raise taxes that does not have some negative impacts / trade offs. But if we want public services and infrastructure that work then raise taxes we must.  Personally I'm glad that she is has gone some way to narrowing the inheritance loop hole which was being used by rich individuals (who are not farmers) to avoid tax. She's slightly rebalanced the burden away from the young, putting it more on wealthier pensioners (who let's face it, have been disproportionately protected for many, many years). And the NICs increase, whilst undoubtedly inflationary, won't be directly passed on (some will, some will likely be absorbed by companies); it's better than raising it on employees, which would have done more to depress growth. Overall, I think she's sailed a prudent course through very choppy waters. The electorate needs to get serious... you can't have European style services and US levels of tax. Borrowing for tax cuts, Truss style, it is is not. Of course the elephant in the room (growing ever larger now Trump is in office and threatening tariffs) is our relationship with the EU. If we want better growth, we need a closer relationship with our nearest and largest trading block. We will at some point have to review tax on transport more radically (as we see greater up take of electric vehicles). The most economically rational system would be one of dynamic road pricing. But politically, very difficult to do
    • Labour was right not to increase fuel duty - it's not just motorists it affects, but goods transport. Fuel goes up, inflation goes up. Inflation will go up now anyway, and growth will stagnate, because businesses will pass the employee NIC hikes onto customers.  I think farms should be exempt from the 20% IHT. I don't know any rich famers, only ones who work their fingers to the bone. But it's in their blood and taking that, often multi-generation, legacy out of the family is heart-breaking. Many work to such low yields, and yet they'll often still bring a lamb to the vet, even if the fees are more than the lamb's life (or death) is worth. Food security should be made a top priority in this country. And, even tho the tax is only for farms over £1m, that's probably not much when you add it all up. I think every incentive should be given to young people who want to take up the mantle. 
    • This link mau already have been posted but if not olease aign & share this petition - https://www.change.org/p/stop-the-closure-of-east-dulwich-post-office
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...