Sydenham and Dulwich Wood

[Salsaboy]

Well put H.

[eucalyptus]

"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??

[eucalyptus]

mfcjoe Wrote:

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

> You should have told him to f*** off , and if that

> don't work, set your dog on him.

yeah......!? Whats a German Shepherd for FFS

[Alan Medic]

A call does not have to be a telephone call.

[eucalyptus]

I feel for Carter, this Ren character sounds very tedious and possibly a frightfully dull shag.

[Alan Medic]

That comment has possibly crossed a line it shouldn't have.

[James Barber]

Earlier this summer we went on a walk around Box Hill. Playtrail really popular - leaflet attached.

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

[Ted Max]

"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)

[Siduhe]

+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.

[Knomester]

I agree wholeheartedly with Ted Mex and Sidhue. We enjoy the woods for unstructured nature play with our toddler and friends.

[Ted Max]

Tex Mex? You cheeky wee enchilada.

Thing is, play trail's a nice idea but I think it would dominate SW. Not a prob in an area like Box Hill.

[Knomester]

Ooops...clearly have food on the mind. Dutifully edited!

[david_carnell]

+3 for Tax Mix

We need more unstructured and unsupervised creative play for children so I'd be inclined not to create these play trails.

As others have said, the space isn't really there for it.

But I appreciate the thought James.

[Cassius]

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.

[Moos]

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!

[Cassius]

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...............

[Otta]

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.