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

    • Girls In Your City - No Selfie - Anonymous Casual Dating https://SecreLocal.com [url=https://SecreLocal.com] Girls In Your City [/url] - Anonymous Casual Dating - No Selfie New Girls [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/vanessa-100.html]Vanessa[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/vanessa-100.html]Vanessa[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/molly-15.html]Molly[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/cheryl-blossom-48.html]Cheryl Blossom[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/carola-conymegan-116.html]Carola Conymegan[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/pupa-41.html]Pupa[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/mia-candy-43.html]Mia Candy[/url]
    • This is a remarkable interpretation of history. Wikipedia (with more footnotes and citations than you could shake a shitty stick at sez: The austerity programme was initiated in 2010 by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government. In his June 2010 budget speech, Osborne identified two goals. The first was that the structural current budget deficit would be eliminated to "achieve [a] cyclically-adjusted current balance by the end of the rolling, five-year forecast period". The second was that national debt as a percentage of GDP would fall. The government intended to achieve both of its goals through substantial reductions in public expenditure.[21] This was to be achieved by a combination of public spending cuts and tax increases amounting to £110 billion.[26] Between 2010 and 2013, the Coalition government said that it had reduced public spending by £14.3 billion compared with 2009–10.[27] Growth remained low, while unemployment rose. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_government_austerity_programme From memory, last time around they were against the LTNs and competing with the Tories to pick up backlash votes - both failed. They had no counterproposals or ideas about how to manage congestion or pollution. This time around they're simply silent on the matter: https://www.southwark-libdems.org.uk/your-local-lib-dem-team/goosegreen Also, as we have seen from Mr Barber's comments on the new development on the old Jewsons yard, "leading campaigns to protect the character of East Dulwich and Goose Green" is code for "blocking new housing".
    • @Insuflo NO, please no, please don't encourage him to post more often! 😒
    • Revealing of what, exactly? I resurrected this thread, after a year, to highlight the foolishness of the OP’s op. And how posturing would be sagacity is quickly undermined by events, dear boy, events. The thread is about Mandelson. I knew he was a wrong ‘un all along, we all did; the Epstein shit just proves it. In reality, Kinnock, Blair, Brown, Starmer et all knew as well but accepted it, because they found him useful. As did a large proportion of the 2024 intake of Labour MPs who were personally vetted and approved by Mandelson.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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