Congratulations to FHSoc on this significant success and particularly those who put such hard work into the submission.

Whilst I did not see the contents of the submission it clearly has merit and the benefits for Forest Hill and Sydenham should not be under-estimated.

However the report in the New Shopper that michael points us to has this para:

"Alongside the grant, provided by the Mayor of London, there will be £100,000 in matched funding from the nearby Bell Green development's second phase, and £15,000 from Lewisham Council."

The reference to matched funding from Bell Green Phase II could be of some concern. First of all - is the newspaper report accurate?

If it is and this funding is part of the original s106 monies secured by LB Lewisham, over recent years it has been very difficult to establish where this money was located and who was holding it and for what purpose. I have copies of the original agreement papers that once were freely available on the web.

Post #4 gives more detail here:

http://www.se23.com/forum/showthread.php...8#pid30778

It becomes a question of needs and priorities really.

Since the original Savacentre opened for trading and then extended its trading to a seven-day-week operation, traffic from the Savacentre location to Southend Lane, Sydenham Road, Perry Rise and Perry Hill have had to endure large volumes of traffic which have led to tailbacks, excessive noise and increased levels of pollution from what is frequently stationary traffic.

I believe it to be understood that the s106 monies were to be used for traffic improvements including bridge widening works in the road network around that entire area from the bridge at Southend Lane which is a choke point to the traffic lights at the end of Perry Rise.

Whilst we could guess that under-estimates in the projected costs of works may have played a part in the non-delivery of these essential works, residents and businesses have never been offered any explanation on the matter or how the money was disbursed or saved for that matter.

So if the report is accurate and the Bell Green monies are to be diverted to the High Street scheme, what body made the decision, what powers does that body have over its disbursement and with whom was any consultation undertaken.

Any diversion in the available monies for this very important road project would necessarily have to be accompanied by assurances as to how funding is to be provided for a commitment to a prioritised road improvement scheme.

As I said at the outset, for those in the area of Bell Green the need to execute the original traffic improvement measures has one of the highest priorities around - and this was attested to at the February Bellingham Ward Assembly. Real democracy at work.