Jump to content

Recommended Posts

"Unfortunately, as we encountered eachother I was looking at my mobile phone. He followed me through the wood, picking up his pace to match mine. Luckily, I bumped into a lovely couple who called the police as I moved on.


Despite repeated calls to him, he would not stop following me"


How did you know his mobile number??

"Would others see value in such a trail at Sydenham woods?"


To be honest, no.


I think there's a danger of Sydenham Woods becoming too managed and "service users" being herded along a narrowing range of paths and routes. The recent dead hedging and increased fencing is no doubt necessary, and I appreciate the need to manage the woods given their popularity, but I would not like to see it go much further.


It's about the only place around here where you can let kids, dogs and adults off the lead and go wherever in an unstructured fashion. A play trail, or similar, would, I think, carry the danger of restricting that.


The good thing about that Box Hill leaflet is its repeated instructions that visitors can go absolutely anywhere they like in the woods. But S Woods are a lot smaller, and less able to soak up a structured play trail and still leave lots of open space.


(Also, there is also already a nature/points of interest trail/walkway, just as a FYI)

+1 Ted Max


The great thing about Sydenham Woods is that they are equally "aimed" at adults, children, adults with children, dogs, meanderers, ramblers and cutting through to the pub'ers. It's nice to have just a little bit of wild, less managed space in ED. The current nature trail is also there for people who want to follow without creating something new that is only really aimed at one group of users.

James - why don't you contact the London Wildlife Trust who administer the woods. I don't think it is a winner 24/7 for the reasons raised above, but the woods have had special days for children (Teddy Bear Picnics and the like) so maybe something like this could be included on some weekends over the year.
Agree with the above posters. Sydenham Woods are stuffed full of monsters' caves, brave explorers' dens, ruined castles, bandits, bridges over raging rapids, evil swamps and the like already. Not sure how much more fun could be packed in. Oh, they could restore the swing, though!

Moos Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Agree with the above posters. Sydenham Woods are

> stuffed full of monsters' caves, brave explorers'

> dens, ruined castles, bandits, bridges over raging

> rapids, evil swamps and the like already. Not

> sure how much more fun could be packed in. Oh,

> they could restore the swing, though!


The swing was considered a Health and Safety threat by LWT. Shame but there you are! Not sure if it was detrimental to the health of the people using it or for the tree. I guess there was always the possibility that someone could get hurt and then feel that they deserved damages...............

Another +1 To Ted.


Although I did take my daughter to a "Teddy Bear's picnic" last year which was very nice, but quite casual.


When I was a kid I loved these woods because you could run free wherever you liked, do stupidly dangerous things, and have adventures. That is the sort of thing kids need more of.

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

    • But all those examples sell a wide variety of things,  and mostly they are well spread out along Lordship Lane. These two shops both sell one very specific thing, albeit in different flavours, and are just across the road from each other. I don't think you can compare the distribution of shops in Roman times to the distribution of shops in Lordship Lane in the twenty first century. Well, you can, but it doesn't feel very appropriate. Haa anybody asked the first shop how they feel? Are they happy about the "healthy competition" ?
    • ED is included in the 17 August closure set (or just possibly 15 August, depending on which part of the page you trust more) listed at https://metro.co.uk/2025/07/25/full-list-25-poundland-stores-confirmed-close-august-23753048/. Here incidentally are some snippets from their annual reports, at https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/02495645/filing-history. 2022: " during the period we opened 41 stores and closed 43 loss-making/under-performing stores.  At the period-end we were trading from 821 stores in the UK, IoM and ROI. ... "We renogotiated 82 leases in the year, saving on average 45% versus the prior lease agreement..." 2023: "We also continued to improve our market footprint through sourcing better store locations, opening 53 and closing 51 stores during the year." 2024:  "The ex-Wilco stores acquired in the prior year have formed a core part of this strategy to expand our store network.  We favour quality over quantity and during the period we opened 84 stores and closed 71 loss-making/under-performing ones."
    • Ha! After I posted this, I thought of lots more examples. Screwfix and the hardware store? Mrs Robinson and Jumping Bean? Chemists, plant shops, hairdressers...  the list goes on... it's good to have healthy competition  Ooooh! Two cheese shops
    • You've got a point.  Thinking Leyland and Screwfix too but this felt different.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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