I've no interest in stopping people moving around freely robin. I just don't see the point in knocking down walls, fences, bushes, trees, whatever for little demonstrable benefit yet altering the nature of the areas concerned.

Got to admit I'd expected the 'gated community' and snobbery criticisms to come much sooner.

I'll say it one more time though, increased crime is not my primary concern. I'd just like to continue to enjoy my street the way it is until someone can demonstrate it can change for the better.

Robin - for a cut through to work it needs to be appropriately designed, ideally well overlooked and add to convenience. I am not sure that many/any of these routes would meet that test? The routes would still be pretty convoluted.

The comments in my latest posting were not directed at you, IWere.

On Satchers' point, I don't know enough about the topography on the other side of the Wall (it's too difficult to get to from where I live, you see) to comment on the convolutedness or otherwise of Michael's proposed routes. But I assume that he at least thought that significant numbers of people would find them useful. On security, I agree any new route would need to have that 'designed in'. I see Michael suggests CCTV.

I feel the need to defend myself as it looks like my post was read in the wrong way. I would hate a gated community and am not against people roaming freely. I did say that a path would be great, I just wouldn't feel safe with a small alleyway, even if it was monitored... CCTV does very little when you're actually getting mugged, I should know as I was robbed walking down a street that was fully monitored, and the footage showed nothing to help investigations. (I guess I could now recieve a reply to this saying that I'm just worrying as the unfortunate happened to me, or that if I don't like small alleyways then I shouldn't use them, monitored or not)

If a wide, well lit path could be built that was overlooked by houses it would be fantastic, I just fear that with the current rise of criminal occurances around Taymount that a small dark alleyway could attract more trouble.

For interest more than anything; the houses in Forestholme Close are owned on 999 year leases (with about 950 years remaining). I cant remember the exact convoluted nature of the ownership of the site but it goes something like, the freeholder of the land (previously, I think, the tennis club that was on the Rise) leased it to a developer in the 1960's, they built the houses, paths, roads etc, the houses were then sold on the 999 year leases mentioned. The owners of the 41(?) houses pay a total of £36 each per year to the 'headleaseholder' (compare that to the charges from The Dulwich Estate for similar freehold houses on their land). The legal documents prevent this figure from ever being increased so the 'headleaseholder' takes an income of £1,476 a year. Previously they would had responsibility for maintaining all shared areas and infrastructure in the street but as Michael said, Lewisham have adopted the roads, paths and green areas. The only things we believe the headleaseholder retains responsibility for are the walls and fences that border parts of the street - when repairs were needed recently LBL stated they were not responsible. They also have to give permission for any structural changes people want to make to the houses (again, they cant charge money for this).

The street itself is named, I believe, after the large house that sat roughly where the road branches off Taymount Rise.