What is a Civic Society

Forest Hill Society
1

I came across this article written by a society similar to the Forest Hill Society in Kingston.

If you’ve ever wondered what a Civic Society like ours is, then this might be an interesting read.

… where the TL;DR is:

“a forum for informed, collective engagement with the future of a place“

We would be very happy to have more residents and businesses join us as members, but particularly as committee members, to help us bring this ambition to life through our events, our campaigns and our activities.

5 Likes
2

Does anyone know if the Forest Hill Society constitution is from a widely used model? @One_Real_JGD notes in his comments here on the new M&S in Bell Green, that the Society does not consult its members. I have some sympathy with the status quo, in that those who do the work take the decisions. But there are those who cannot engage (e.g. those with young families) and should their opinions not be taken into account?

This is why I have thought that we might be better off with a Town Council, which would have a democratic mandate and a recognised position in local governance.

3

The Forest Hill Society constitution was taken from that used by the Sydenham Society with minor changes when it was formed in 2006. It is not expected to be a formal democratic tool of representation - we have a borough council and local councillors for that. In terms of planning applications, these are decided by the local council - not civic societies or even neighbourhood forums.

It is possible that a formally constituted town council may have some powers but i personally think there is a limit to how far you want to delegate powers and would want many real powers to be held by groups smaller than the council. My observation is that the more power you devolve to a lower level, the more likely there is for corruption - albeit at a small scale. This is because it relies on a level of participation that is not usually forthcoming. So most attempts to make decisions in ward assemblies or even via local referenda get low levels of participation that makes their democratic credentials more questionable than the imposition from borough level where we have some semblance of democratic representation.

All that being said, the concept of participation in decision making and multipicity of views at a local level should be welcomed and civic societies are just one way to accomplish that. But I would suggest that the Forest Hill Society doesn’t exist to make decisions as much as to make a difference - campaigning for more trains, swimming pools, libraries, town centre improvements, new conservation areas, walking events, local history talks, gardening in the town centre, carols, cleaning the subway, picking up litter - these don’t need a democratic mandate as much as they need action from anybody in the local community and that is what the Civic Societies facilitate.

7 Likes
4

Everyone but me seems to be happy with the political status quo. Why is it then, to take one example, that Forest Hill doesn’t have a modern pedestrian crossing in the town centre? Whose job is it to request that, follow up, and ensure that Forest Hill is not always at the back of the queue for improvements such as this?

5

I wouldn’t categorise myself as happy with the political status - mainly the ridiculous electoral system that usually gives us three ward councillors from one party on less than 80% of the votes - it should be a party list system in each ward. But that’s just my opinion and doesn’t really impact the way we cross the road.

The difficulty is that the pedestrian crossing is the responsibility of TfL roads. Lewisham has little say and TfL is not democratically accountable in the same way (they can easily ignore Forest Hill).

Here’s a small partof the discussion with TfL i had in 2014 where they said it was on the list of improvements in 2015/2016.

Date: 16.10.2014

> Further to my email to you on 1 October 2014 regarding dates for improving the A205 Forest Hill junction. I am now able to provide the following information.

> Thank you for including the image of the traffic island at Forest Hill junction. I can confirm that this junction is on our list of Programme for improving pedestrian crossings. Unfortunately, due to the number of schemes on our 2014/15 Programme, this scheme has now been listed under our 2015/16 works programme.

After a few years of similar reassurances and excuses I stopped this particular route of changing anything. I think the only thing that would have an impact is to have some direct action and close the south circular for rush hour over a few days. But since Thames Water do this regularly, even that might not have much impact.

It should be easier to get a pedestrian crossing on the other side of the railway since it is under the control of Lewisham, but even there it has been difficult to change anything. But I don’t think a town council would necessarily solve those problems perhaps it just shows how useless all our elected officials have been for so long (and the Forest Hill Society - including me). There’s a massive collective failure to have a sensible pedestrian crossing during the last 10 years when we have seen massive road layout changes across London for cyclists and even for pedestrians in minor locations like Houston Road but not for such a major road junction.

What we need is a few more determined people to take on this little project on behalf of the Forest Hill Society and see what they can do. I think there is the opportunity for somebody tenacious to make this change but it is difficult to expect the same few people to champion this as well as everything else that FHSoc has to do.

Rant over, thanks for letting me get that out!

2 Likes
6

But whenever I dare suggest something like this, people line up to defend Ellie Reeves and Lewisham Council. I don’t get it.

7

Without wishing to demean the spirit behind the Forest Hill and Sydenham societies, of which I’m a member of neither, surely they fall under the the definition of an independent think tank staffed by volunteers who feel inclined to invest local attention to the betterment of the neighbourhood?

8

I think it is okay to defend elected officials (and unelected ones) but still recognise that they haven’t changed the world or even improved a road crossing. Perhaps it is low expectations but I doubt the change of councillors is suddenly going to change this situation. I hope they do but it needs something more to make it happen - and I don’t mean a death on that junction as I really don’t want that to happen.

9

I can’t imagine how frustrating it must be for you and the FHSoc that your representations over more than a decade have fallen on deaf ears.

I can also understand the point made by @Forester because of what might appear to be ambivolence on your part; and, personally, instead of everyone seemingly being happy with the political status quo I’m more begrudgingly tolerant of it, which I suspect may be how a lot of people are?

But for a crossing where 3,500 - 4,000 train passengers a day have to run the S.Circ gauntlet, one would expect that TfL would see it as a priority :man_shrugging:

10

For avoidance of doubt, I want to put it on the record that I acknowledge and appreciate the work of Michael, the current Chair Rob, and the many FHS committee members who have given their time for the community.

I only note that the policy of never being openly critical of elected representatives, not being strident in making demands, always showing respectful deference to our MP, Councillors, GLA Rep etc. hasn’t worked for us. As a failed strategy, Playing Nicely should perhaps be reviewed and changed.

11

Thanks @Forester . I think it is good to discuss these things.

The problem with being openly too critical of elected representatives is that they (not FhSoc) have a democratic mandate so there is a good chance that the majority of local people support them. There is also a desire to ensure that Forest Hill Society is not aligned with any political party - if we were to be openly critical of a councillor, mayor or MP then we may be seen to be supporting the opposition.

Each of us have our own political views and I know that the Forest Hill Society committee comprises people with a variety of party political affiliations - a diversity that is healthy.

So while I would be happy for the Forest Hill Society to criticise the lack of action by TfL - and therefore the GLA and Lewisham council, i wouldn’t blame people individually even if they are elected officials. But I would encourage local people to write to their MP or councillor or GLA representatives to ask them why the crossing outside Forest Hill station is still waiting for an upgrade 12 years after it was identified by TfL as in need of attention.

2 Likes
12

Can @Forester explain how they think decision-making at a high level is achieved?

Taking the example of the pedestrian crossing and TfL. TfL haven’t shown any inclination that they want to improve the crossing for pedestrians. Who is is that you think has the power to overrule TfL and force them to implement a better (for pedestrians) crossing? Certainly not Lewisham Council or our MP. Sadiq Khan would have more influence maybe, but the effort of persuading him to intervene would probably be better expended on persuading TfL themselves to take action.

As for “being strident in making demands”, you do realise that, on any given topic, other people will have different views that are probably just as valid as your own, and decision-makers should be trying to balance the competing needs of everyone, not just the group who made “demands” the most stridently?

As a non-driving pedestrian, yes I would like pedestrian-prioritised crossings at the junction. I live on the Perry Vale side of Forest Hill so fortunately don’t need to use that crossing often, but it is still a disincentive to want to cross over to London Road (just as some people are put off using the subway to get to shops along Perry Vale). But I don’t believe my desire for a better crossing trumps a driver’s desire not to be overly inconvenienced. Or a local resident who doesn’t want increased stationary traffic spewing fumes outside their home. I think TfL are probably too strongly in favour of maintaining traffic flow over pedestrian convenience but “demanding” they do differently isn’t going to work.

If someone has the time and energy they could take this on again, and perhaps explore innovative solutions. Diagonal crossings maybe? Oxford Circus has had them for a few years now, which presumably means they work well there. What would that entail for the FH junction? Stopping all traffic for 15 seconds to let pedestrians cross in one leg? Could someone persuade TfL to model that to see what the impacts on traffic flow would be?

2 Likes
13

The Forest Hill society transport group keeps up the pressure on a number of issues as best it can. It is however a fairly thankless task for anyone to show up at the odd ‘forum’ with perhaps TfL, the railway company, the Council and other well resourced professional organisations well prepared enough to ask and follow up on the same questions again and again. For example:-

Why can we not have direct trains to East Croydon like we did for over 100 years until recently? Why does it take so much longer to get to Gatwick and the south than it used to, and why do we have to go via the inaccessible Norwood Junction or the also inaccessible and time consuming West Croydon tram ?

Why do we not have step free access to the station on the Perry Vale side?

Why do we have a stepped underpass that is clearly sub optimal and was complained about as being inadequate in the newspapers as long as 150 years ago?

And why can we not have a safe and normal one stage pedestrian crossing from the station to London Road without penning in primary school children on the way to Horniman in the middle of unpleasant and probably dangerous traffic?

I believe that numerous explanations have been given by the relevant authorities on all of these over the years. Our elected representatives dutifully pass on these explanations. For example I saw recently a letter from the aviation minister responding to a local resident’s complaint about nighttime and early morning aircraft noise. And I know of numerous official explanations about the trains to East Croydon. But it is rare indeed for any person or body with the power or influence to press the matter, provide impetus for change and be persistent about it, if necessary for years

I think it is also difficult for FHSoc to push on these issues- in the face of a constant stream of explanations but no action, it would be natural to conclude that the effort required is too much.

As a generalist civic society with a passion for where we live, we will never be short of ideas for things that would improve our lot and there are plenty of suggestions for what ought to be done - by someone! But resourcing a long term campaign with multiple stakeholders is hard work for anyone including volunteers with busy lives.

On transport issues there are occasional wins - the Houston Road junction improvements are one that was achieved for many reasons - evidence of the dangers, campaigning for safer cycle and pedestrian crossings, campaigning and letter writing by local residents , the interest and push of a Perry Vale councillor and probably much more over some 20 years.

Preventing the extension of London City Airport operating hours at a public inquiry was something achieved with strong support from FHSoc.

It does not need the FHSoc to lead on all these issues, however supportive we are for change. I sometimes wonder if new specialist campaign groups with a single issue focus might emerge and be able to stimulate additional impetus and pressure on issues like pedestrian crossings both sides of the station with Councillors, MP, TfL, railways etc etc. beyond bland and bureaucratic explanations and towards interest , agreement , problem definition and collaborative and creative solutions - ideally within our lifetimes!

3 Likes
14

I wish I could help you with that. I think that persistent relentless advocacy from committed representatives is probably the greater part.

I know that our MP wrote to Mayor Khan a few years back to ask about getting an upgrade to the town centre crossing. As far as I recall (those with better memories please correct me) Khan conferred with TFL and wrote back that the budget had already been fully allocated and there was no money for Forest Hill.

As I recall (please set me straight if this is incorrect) the matter was left there. Perhaps a different MP might follow up - Dear Mayor, why is Forest Hill not included for an upgrade? This is overdue, and my constituents have to live with the A205 intersecting their town centre.

It would be interesting to understand this wouldn’t it? What would the answer be? Maybe this -

Dear MP, normally TFL considers those crossings where the Borough Highways Dept has made a request for an upgrade, but none was made

or this

Dear MP, Our road engineers identified 40 sites that were assessed to be in greater need of upgrade.

Again, a persistent MP might want to know more -

Dear Mayor, please can you outline the criteria used to select the 40 sites that were apparently designated as priority?

As it is, we simply don’t know, do we? Have I missed something? We all visit other areas of London and pretty much everywhere else seems to have single phase crossings, especially near stations.

Keeping the question more local; I also don’t know how decisions are made within the Borough. For example - regarding which streets will have help with rat-running - I have tried to discover (from officers and councillors) the criteria used, and the process for decision-making, but have entirely failed. Anyone in the know, please enlighten us.