| Author |
Message |
Brian
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Tuesday, 10 February, 2004 - 03:47 pm: | |
I would like to enquire whether any one knows if and when this much used footpath is to be re opened. It was closed about 5 months ago with a sign both sides saying closed because of work on the church roof. This seems to have been completed .
Are they planning to try and close this footpath? Surely this is an historic right of way. I would imagine it has been there since the church was built , probably in the 1850's.
Surely rights of way cannot be closed unchallenged.
I would be interested to know if anyone else knows what is going on. |
Brian
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Monday, 01 March, 2004 - 12:59 pm: | |
I am surprised no one knows anything about this. Surely someone must have to had obtained legal permission to close this footpath. As the weeks tick by it looks more and more permament |
Johnnyb7
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Monday, 01 March, 2004 - 10:08 pm: | |
There is a lot more to this than meets the eye I fear. As a resident of 51 Devonshire Road I received notice from the council that planning permission had been sought to replace the roof on the church hall and remove a WW2 airraid shelter from the the back of it. This was in December, and only gave a couple of weeks notice for objections to be written and submitted. All well and good you might say, except that the work mentioned in the planning application had already been carreid out. In fact in the case of the air raid shelter, arguably a conservable part of the local heritage, the demolition had taken place months before. Clearly a case of shutting the legal barn door after the proverbial illegal horse had long gone. |
Brian
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Tuesday, 02 March, 2004 - 07:26 am: | |
Johnny
Thanks for your info. We still do not know why the footpath is still closed.
Did the council mention the footpath when they wrote to you ?
Many thanks |
alana
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Tuesday, 02 March, 2004 - 10:52 pm: | |
Is it not the case that this path is so secluded that it is dangerous? I have taken it as a short cut before when out with others, and have found all sorts of things going on judging by the amount of used condoms and syringes. I have to walk past it at night and always crossed the road beforehand in case I was dragged down it and attacked. Personally, I much prefer it to be cordoned off! |
Les
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Thursday, 04 March, 2004 - 10:47 pm: | |
The last time I looked, the air-raid shelter was still there - if its the 12ft x 12ft brick and concrete blockhouse we are talking about.
Good riddance if that is going. It's a potentially nice piece of space. I wonder what the plans are for it.
I agree with Alana - I used to cut though to the post box on Devonshire, and it always felt dodgey in the extreme after dark. |
Cllr David Whiting
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Thursday, 04 March, 2004 - 11:49 pm: | |
My advice from the planners was that this is a private path, and therefore the church authorities were within their rights to close it.
I will attempt to establish whether they have any plans to reopen it.
d |
Brian
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Friday, 05 March, 2004 - 08:28 am: | |
Hello
David
Many thanks for your help.
Whilst I apprecaite the comments that some people found the pathway dangerous , i found it very usefull and of course no one has to use it.Surely the answer if a right of way has had nasty incidents is not to close the right of way but to clean up the problem. If we closed every right of way where there had been a problem few roads in SE 23 would remain open. |
Les
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Friday, 05 March, 2004 - 05:33 pm: | |
The path has been habitually used for years, certainly since 1997 when I moved to FH. Is there a case that it had become a public right of way? |
alana
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Friday, 05 March, 2004 - 11:27 pm: | |
No-one is forced to use that path, however,I reiterate my point in that everytime I walk past in the dark, I have to cross the road, as it is so easy to be mugged and dragged down it. I hope it stays blocked off for good. There is reference elsewhere on this website about a recent attack in an alleyway. |
Les
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Tuesday, 09 March, 2004 - 11:10 pm: | |
Fair comment - I hope the walkway (from London Rd to Waldenshaw Rd) included in the Sainsbury's redevelopment plan is open and well-lit. One version I saw on the plans looked narrowish with fences between the path and the gardens of the new flats/houses in Walsw Rd... |
martin
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Friday, 21 May, 2004 - 02:01 pm: | |
Iam concerned that if the path between Davids Road and Devonshire Road has been used for many years and is possibly a public right a way as a matter of principle surely nobody would have the right to permanently close it without public consultations first.
Please could we find out how long the path has been there, there might be a record of it with the ordinance survey office.
Perhaps the Ramblers Association might give advice, not that it would be an area they would use but they are very keen in keeping public rights of way. |
Les
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Friday, 21 May, 2004 - 02:35 pm: | |
Martin,
I agree with you here. My grandad had a case with a path across his garden, and the judgement was 12 years of public access (no locked gates or suitable signs) = public right of way.
It's certainly been in use since 1997, because I've been using it! (mainly to get to the post box on Devonshire, without having to go round the A205).
Les. |
Martin
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Friday, 11 June, 2004 - 11:50 am: | |
Les,
Many thanks for your information, very useful
Has anybody out there got any ordinance survey maps of that particular area or any land registry deeds which would prove the length of time the apparent right of way has been used.
It is important, in my opinion, ALL rights of way should be preserved .
Perhaps the local press could help? |
cllr David Whiting
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Friday, 11 June, 2004 - 12:08 pm: | |
The planners are now looking at the situation, though I understand that this is not recorded as a public right of way.
d |
Les
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Friday, 11 June, 2004 - 12:31 pm: | |
It's going to be a tough one to reinstate now, because some landscaping has been done.
I certainly believe it is a useful access, which should be maintained.
Les. |
Brian
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Friday, 11 June, 2004 - 01:51 pm: | |
Hi
Thanks for all your concerns
I would like to add it has been open since at least May 85 and probably many years before |
Martin
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Friday, 25 June, 2004 - 06:33 pm: | |
I believe the time has come to involve the local press.
The longer we leave it as mentioned earlier the harder it will be to reinstate.
Perhaps they may have access to records?
We must act now or things will drift and nothing will be done .
We MUST have a decision one way or the other. Do we preserve or do we not? |
carol
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Friday, 25 June, 2004 - 10:29 pm: | |
All respondents on this issue apart from one have been men- the one woman who commented made the point of it being an attackers dream. Also a woman who also walks past it regularly , I would prefer to see it closed permanently. It is a public hazard and we should be aiming to provide an environment conducive to safety, not fear of mugging and rape. |
T
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Monday, 28 June, 2004 - 09:38 am: | |
I think it should be preserved and preservation gets my vote.
Surely if some effort/money is put into lighting it appropriately and perhaps even some of the mirror set-ups placed along the path to see whose already there, it's a useful cut through.
Beckenham has a whole network or similar pathways between many residential streets and Mum's feel quite happy to use them during the day.
Perhaps commonsense would put you off using this path on your own late at night, but considering the threat of rape, mugging and all sorts is always present. I feel people should have the choice........ |
Les
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Monday, 28 June, 2004 - 10:38 am: | |
I understand the security point, but that is an argument for closing all pathways. Havelock Walk is hardly ideal at night, but no-one is suggesting closing that.
I feel the route should be maintained, and preferably properly lit.
My feeling is that the way to progress this is to write a formal objection to the development to LB Lewisham. Any takers? |
carol
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Monday, 28 June, 2004 - 01:40 pm: | |
Sorry, but I do not have the choice to avoid walking past this path entrance every time I go to and from work. I do not have to use it to be threatened by it. Its presence is an infringement of my personal liberty and that of every other woman and I stand by my statement. I think you will find that there is considerable business activity along havelock Walk, and also people live there. This is a different situation entirely. |
Liz
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Monday, 28 June, 2004 - 02:09 pm: | |
I have used this footpath for the past 12 years and have never felt threatened. It is especially useful as a shortcut from Devonshire Road to Fairlawn nursery as it means parents and children don't have to face the pollution, heavy lorries and boy racers on the South Circular! I support any moves to try and reopen it |
Les
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Monday, 28 June, 2004 - 02:23 pm: | |
Sorry Carol, we disagree here. Havelock Walk is better because it is lit, however its still a quiet back alley at night, with few people about. I've seen evidence of it being used for various anti-social activities.
Nonetheless, I don't find Davids Road threatening, because there are usually people about, and the presence of the ambulance station helps... |
Brian
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Monday, 28 June, 2004 - 02:26 pm: | |
Thanks for all your interest and hopefully we can get something done but not sure how. I would imagine our best best is the local councillor who has already mentioned will investigate. |
carol
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Monday, 28 June, 2004 - 10:45 pm: | |
I stand by my comments , however, I have had it confirmed that as it is a private path to a private property, and there are public liability issues in the light of some recent goings on, it will never in fact be opened to the public again. Hoorah! |
Brian
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Tuesday, 29 June, 2004 - 06:41 am: | |
Hi Carol
Whilst I apprecaite your safety concerns , surely the concern here should be if there is an historic right of way. The fact it may be private property is not relevent as many country people have found out. A right of way can exist over private land.
I know it has been used as a right of way for at least 19 years. We need someone who has a longer knowledge to come forward. Also someone who knows the law better than me, which would not be difficult.
With regard to Carol's safety concern. Whilst of course I am symphatic to any safety concern we would have to close every road in Forest Hill to allay some people's concerns. |
Suzi
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Saturday, 03 July, 2004 - 09:27 pm: | |
Does anyone use the footpath from Smiths to Sydenham Bridge, along the railway line. That is the one that needs closing, it seems very dangerous as there is nowhere to leave it once you start walking down there - regardless of who might be coming the other way. |
i
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Saturday, 03 July, 2004 - 11:16 pm: | |
no! stop closing walkways and access routes, it is important that we have a choice, simpily if you don't like it don't use it. Suzi the footpath has been there for years, ever since i can remember. |
CR
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Sunday, 04 July, 2004 - 12:25 am: | |
I think one of the important issues to address locally is the lack of adequate street lighting. I know it's not a magic solution that's going to instantly stop crime, but it does help to keep areas more accessible and encourages more people to use different routes. I agree with I that if you don't feel confident about using a certain pathway then don't use it. It's good to have the choice. I'm sure once there was a way of walking direct from my road (Taymount Rise) to Dulwich Woods but the closure of several footpaths over the years has meant my friends and I now have to take a longer route. Keep the walkways - but step up security. Maybe in a Utopian parallel universe that's not such an unreasonable request... |
Brian
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Sunday, 04 July, 2004 - 09:05 am: | |
Hello
I cannot believe someone is now suggesting closing the footpath by the railway. To my personal knowledge has been there since 1955 and I would imagine 1840's or even when the canal was there from 1780's.
We cannot close all our historic routes. As others mentioned we should improve security and more importantly deal properly with criminals. |
Cllr David Whiting
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Sunday, 04 July, 2004 - 09:55 am: | |
The footpath along the railway will seem much safer as new developments take place between Dartmouth Road and the railway.
The Bird in Hand Passage development is well under way, and an application will soon be submitted for a development on the site of the old Crown Graphics factory.
These developments will overlook the passage and make it less attractive to criminal elements.
These and other developments and renovation schemes should also increase pedestrian passage through the small passages and alleyways running down from Dartmouth Road, which will also make for greater safety.
These developments follow on from the Forest Hill Strategy and will turn the area between Dartmouth Road and the railway from dereliction to a rather desirable place to live and work.
They will also mean more people living and working within walking distance of the centre who will hopefully use local shops, pubs and cafes.
regards
d |
Brian
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Monday, 05 July, 2004 - 07:11 am: | |
Dear David
This is indeed good news. Are the new devolpments going to be buisness or just residential. Whilst I apprecaite we need residential property the problem with SE 23 is that most working people have to leave the area. I would imagine as the Crown Graphics site was zoned commercial then that is what it will hopefully remain.
I was disturbed to notice another local shop has closed. The curtain and blind shop behind the station. Sign saying moved to Penge. I note we are also losing the very nice opticians on Dartmouth Rd , Steven Harris , again they say rents too high. |
Cllr David Whiting
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Monday, 05 July, 2004 - 08:44 am: | |
The Crown Graphics site will include employment as well as housing. The exact numbers will emerge when the formal application comes in, and, as I agree with you about employment, I shall take an interest in the mix.
Mind you, most residents will have to leave the area to work, which is why good transport links to the Thames corridor etc are very important for skilled manual as well as office workers.
I was aware that Harris is going. There is a real problem in Forest Hill of unrealistic rent expectations leading to unnecessarily empty shops. There probably are too many shop premises in Forest Hill, and a need for some reduction, but in a couple of cases lately we have lost good viable businesses because rent reviews have forced them to move. Officers will soon be meeting to look at business in Forest Hill, and I have made it clear to them that my view is that this is a question that needs to be considered.
d |
Brian Pentecost
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Monday, 05 July, 2004 - 01:09 pm: | |
Dear Councillor
Again thanks for your reply. One other point we seem to have diverted from the main point which was the passageway between Devonshire and David's Road which was closed to the public about 6 months ago.
Is this or is this not a right of way. Even by default as seems to have been used as such for over 100 years.
Can this be clarified one way or the other. I do not seem to be alone in missing this usefull short cut. |
Martin
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Thursday, 26 August, 2004 - 05:06 pm: | |
I am worried that if we delay any action on preserving the right of way, I have been informed by somebody that it was used over thirty years ago, we will lose it forever.
Watch this space |
Les.
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Thursday, 26 August, 2004 - 06:34 pm: | |
Agree with Martin on this - it was a useful shortcut to the postbox, and avoids the dreaded A205...
Les. |
Brian
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Friday, 27 August, 2004 - 07:27 am: | |
Please will one of our Councillors deliberate over this. I am sure we will soon be told no one objected so a de facto right of way , that has been there a minimum of 30 years , probably 130 , has been lost |
martin
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Thursday, 02 September, 2004 - 05:57 pm: | |
Please email our local councillors for our ward.
Names and details you can obtain from "Lewisham Life" |
Gilles
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Friday, 03 September, 2004 - 01:07 pm: | |
Cllr Whiting:
"I have made it clear to them that my view is that this is a question that needs to be considered."
Excellent news. Well done. |
Gilles
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Friday, 03 September, 2004 - 01:17 pm: | |
Further to my previous e.mail I really do not want to give the impression that I could possibly have been slightly sarcastic.
I fully support Cllr Whitting's dedication to improve the area. I would add that we need to take this agenda forward and work together ( in partnership with key players in this area) to make Forest Hill a place where our community can celebrate the rich heritage present in the area.
Furthermore, I believe we should create a “what we do best” working group (This could be called the “What we do best working group”) to demonstrate further our commitment to building a better, improved and enhanced strategy to raise our constantly improving standards.
I think this would be instrumental in bringing (and sustaining) businesses to FH, getting rid of litter at the bottom of the stairs off platform 2 and generally improving the area.
Keep up the good work. |
R
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Monday, 29 November, 2004 - 09:04 pm: | |
Any further news, Councillor Whiting? |
Hilltop General
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Wednesday, 01 December, 2004 - 10:14 am: | |
I think whatever "church" is using the building between Devonshire and Davids Rd is getting away rahter lightly. They have closed the path, cut down all the greenery and just left an empty and unsighlty patch of mud with a temporary sitebfence around it. Now they have put two crumby banners on the fence. Fairly sure you have to have planning permission for adverts... I would recommend they take them down, or I will. |
Johnnyb7
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Wednesday, 01 December, 2004 - 06:05 pm: | |
There are two equally crumby banners at the Devonshire Road end of the passage, fastened to the wall that forms part of 51 Devonshire Road, where I live. Visitors to the "Church" seem to think they are entitled to use our residents-only car park too. Still, the Lord giveth and if He doesn't take away soon I shall be contacting Lewisham Council about the whole shambles. |
Matt
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Wednesday, 01 December, 2004 - 11:15 pm: | |
We are also nightly bathed in the Lord's light (a high energy floodlight) which I'm sure is also illegal. |
