Planning Application, Westwood Park

Below is the text of the Forest Hill Society submission regarding planning application DC/08/69339/X, 15 Westwood Park.

On behalf of the Forest Hill Society I wish to object to the proposed development at 15 Westwood Park which we believe is over development of the site and will have a detrimental effect on the local area.

Context of the site:
15 Westwood Park is just outside the Forest Hill conservation area in a suburban context with housing on three sides of the plot. The removal of three fine trees from the site is already cause for concern and should be reversed, as much as is possible, in any application. Policy HSG 7 states that:
‘The Council will require developers to retain any attractive or ecologically important existing natural features of a site’.
We would ask that the planning officers to ask for tree planting as part of any future development to remedy this loss of trees on the site.

Over development:
Whilst we welcome the building of family housing rather than flats at this location the density levels are too high for this suburban location. We understand that the density level is approximately 300 habitable rooms per hectare and this is significantly higher than outlined in policy HSG 16 which recommends denisty of 180-210 habitable rooms per hectare. The location of this development is not in a sustainable living area and is some distance from Forest Hill station with a substantial hill that impacts on the desirability of high density housing on such a location.

In relation to the London Plan (table 3A.2) this recommends a range of 150-250 habitable rooms per hectare in a suburban setting, outside the town centre and with a considerable hill separating the site from all public transport. This application has exceeded the maximum density recommended by the London Plan on a site that is unsuitable for such density. We recommend that the planning officers reject this application based on the high density levels on this site contrary to council and GLA policy guidance.

Internal layout of the houses:
Plots 1-3 only have a single door between the kitchen and the toilet. We would seek clarification from the officers whether this is in contravention of planning regulations. Many of the bathrooms higher than ground floor level, have no natural light or ventilation. We would recommend that for a more pleasant internal environment, and to save energy that as many of these bathrooms as possible have natural ventilation. In modern buildings we would expect to see the inclusion of windows to allow for natural light and energy saving without impacting on overlooking of other properties, however, with such high density levels on this site such provision would be very difficult.

Another concern is the small gardens of the plots. Policy HSG 7 states that:
‘Family dwellings should be provided with their own private garden area. Normally, a minimum garden depth of 9 metres will be required.’ None of the gardens on the site meet the desired depth set out in this policy.


Traffic:
Cars reversing from the garages and the access road create a concern because of the nature of this road. On this side of the road there is the peak of a hill directly before these houses. Cars exiting from the site will have little visibility of on coming traffic and any cars needing to stop to let them out would create a hazard for more cars coming over the hill. This problem of lack of visibility will only be exacerbated by the need for plots 1-3 to park on the road rather than in driveways or garages.

Policy HSG 8d states that there must be a proper means of access, suitable for the entry and egress of service vehicles which is convenient and safe both for drivers and pedestrians. We do not believe that this egress is safe for other road users or convenient for residents.

Subsidence
Horniman hill has many springs and underground waterways located on it. This has lead to the peculiar architecture of the Horniman School located in close proximity to this site. It is our concern that significant excavation and building on this location could lead to flooding and subsidence for houses in close proximity and further down the hill. We would ask that a full assessment of the affects of this backland development on neighbouring properties is undertaken and includes water surveys for the site.

We believe that for the reasons stated above the council should reject this application.

Planning Application Redberry Grove

Below is the text of the Forest Hill Society submission regarding planning application DC/08/69263/X, 4 Redberry Grove.

On behalf of the Forest Hill Society I wish to object to the proposed development at 4 Redberry Grove which we believe is out of context for the local area.

Redberry Grove is very special road in the Sydenham Park conservation area and the development of a building that is substantially out of character will have a significant affect on the nature of the conservation area in close proximity to an area of nature conservation - Albion Millennium Green which has only recently been designated as such. By developing a new backland development in such close proximity to Albion Millennium Green we are concerned that it will have a negative effect on this area of nature conservation and access to it. Additionally 3 Redberry Grove is a listed building and again this proposed development would negatively impact on the context of this listed building.

Whilst the design and the materials used for this building are state of the art and make a very interesting modern building these are totally out of context within the conservation area, which is primarily one of large Victorian houses which have been well preserved due to the conservation area. It would be a great shame to spoil this area of outstanding Victorian architecture by the discordant nature of this development.

Policy URB 5 sections c-g should be taken into account when considering this development and we believe the council should reject this application.

Forest Hill Society response to the Forest Hill Pools Consultation

Below is the full text of the submission from the Forest Hill Society on the pools consultation. We understand that this may not fully represent the views of every single member of the Forest Hill Society or of the wider community but it is the considered opinions of a number of residents who have been involved in understanding the council's plans, and with experience as architects, developers of conservation schemes, health professionals, active swimmers, and parents, and we have listened to many views from local residents to make sure that we do represent a significant section of local residents.

The Forest Hill Society welcomes London Borough of Lewisham’s commitment to swimming in Forest Hill, and the promise of “no demolition without consultation”. Whilst we welcome the three options presented as part of the consultation, we have some reservations about the options offered and consultation process so far.

Facilities

As the Forest Hill Society we believe that an improved leisure facility on the site of the pools and Louise House is vital to the continued success of Forest Hill as a town centre. These facilities will attract people to the area and they will use other local facilities such as the shops and library at the same time.

We have collated feedback from local residents and have already passed on some of the best ideas to the council through the stakeholders’ meetings.

The most important requirements are:

1. The need for two pools – a main pool and a learner pool.
2. We think that a strong connection between the library and the leisure centre is really important and envisage an overlap of courses between the two buildings enhancing the offering from both.

Other considerations:

3. The learner pool could have a moveable floor to make it suitable for children of different ages and for hydrotherapy. According to the architects present at the station display this would not add significantly to the overall cost of the project (the figure of £100,000 was quoted).
4. The community area should include a regular shaped space for use as a large meeting hall (for up to 150 people), but more often can be divided into 2 or 3 rooms which can be used for education or for sport or community groups.
5. Innovative sporting facilities would help make the facility popular and well used e.g. a climbing wall and possibly boulders for non-supervised climbing outside the leisure centre.
6. We think that a strong connection between the library and the leisure centre is really important and envisage an overlap of courses between the two buildings enhancing the offering from both.
7. More retail units are not required when there are already many unoccupied retail units in the centre of Forest Hill.
8. A cafe is a good idea and should overlook the pool, with easy access for parents to move between the cafe and the changing area to assist their children.
9. Parking needs careful consideration, especially if there is to be additional housing on the site. We would not want to see a CPZ imposed on Derby Hill, Thorpewood Avenue, and Derby Hill Crescent, but there would need to be controls over car use for any residents of the properties on the site. With recent developments in Forest Hill there does not seem to be a way to implement car-free developments without the imposition of CPZ on all local streets. Lewisham council needs to look at other ways to ensure car-free developments for the life of these properties.

Design & Layout

We have been disappointed with the three designs presented which are fundamentally the same building with different levels of housing. Of particular concern were the following aspects of the design:

1. The entrance of the leisure centre in all options is on the north side of the development making the public area and entrance north facing with little direct sunlight, but more importantly it is at the furthest point from the library, ‘turning it’s back to the library’ as some have put it.
2. The link between the leisure centre and library looks like an afterthought rather than properly connecting the main part of the leisure complex to the library, although if a link at the library floor level could be made to work this could be very successful.
3. We would prefer a building that is designed in sympathy with the library with a coherent frontage rather than showing disregard for a fine grade 2 listed building. The design of the centre needs to be improved to compliment the library rather than as a blank modern building to ‘avoid diverting attention from the library’ – something that option 3 certainly fails to do. The Horniman Museum extension is an excellent local example of how a modern building can be integrated into an existed listed building in a coherent way.
4. We understand that there is a target of between 35% and 50% social housing on the site. Given that any profits from developing houses on the site will go directly into a community facility we believe that social housing should be minimised. That is not to say that there should be no social housing, but that a maximum of 20% would be more appropriate to allow for the best possible leisure development on the site. We are aware that Lewisham Council wish to see 35% social housing in developments of this size, but given the community benefit of profits going directly into the leisure centre it would make sense to adjust this target in this specific case.

Problems with specific options:

1. In Option 3 the seven story development is out of character with the streetscape of Dartmouth Road.
2. The high rise (7 storey) housing is too close to the road, built over the pavement and completely out of proportion to the other side of Dartmouth Road. This results in a strong physical separation between the part of Forest Hill with the pool to the north and the part of Forest Hill with the library to the south.
3. The isolated unit in option 2 for retail and possibly for housing does not fit well with the overall layout of the area and breaks up the public space
4. We are not happy with the scale or location of the housing along the frontage of option 3 and think that this needs serious reconsideration with alternative arrangements and locations explored e.g. along the back of pools building or around the square. There is plenty of room for extra housing to be built above the changing area and car park to the rear of the leisure centre. There are already large trees to the rear of the houses on Derby Hill Crescent that would prevent overlooking from this position. Access could be from the rear of the public space (possibly the same access as the flats aligned with Kingswear House). This is just one solution and we are sure that there are others that could be explored but have not been as part of this consultation.
5. Further housing may be possible above the garages to the rear of the site on Torcross Drive. By redeveloping these garages to providing some residential areas above the garage facilities, less residential development would be needed at the front of the site.
6. The loss on the pocket park is not a significant loss to Forest Hill with Baxter’s Field not far from the site and the new public space created on this site.

We hope that prior to awarding the contract for building the leisure centre other design options are considered, ideally opening up the process to a design competition. We understand that these designs were put together primarily to give an idea of bulk and massing and residential unit numbers, but they fail to show how different layouts for the site have been tested. We could easily be stuck with a sub-standard design for decades to come if the process now proceeds too quickly and without careful thought and proper consideration of what is possible, including allowing the architects selected through the OJEU process the opportunity to bring their creative design skills to the project.

Options and Bulk

From the three options presented by the council we believe that option 1 is not right as it does not include a learner pool. Options 2 and 3 both provide a better facility and although we are keen to maximise the leisure and community facilities available on this site, we do not believe that the housing set out in option 3 is the best way to achieve this.

Consultation Process

We have been disappointed with the consultation process for a number of reasons and we do not believe the council have engaged properly with the local community in regard to this development. This beginning sets a bad precedent as we move forward to the implementation phase.

Amongst our concerns are:

1. Lack of different designs available for public consultation.
2. The consultation has been open to people from across the borough, starting off in Catford, rather than focusing on the residents of Forest Hill.
3. Leaflets that were delivered to local residents were delivered too close to the beginning of the consultation and were simple white A4 sheets. In the 2005/2006 consultation the consultation document itself was delivered to every house, this should have been done again to get maximum feedback. Instead residents have to go to the library to pick up a leaflet or have access to the Internet for the online consultation.
4. The display in the library and the presentation of the three options in the consultation document significantly simplified the options and did not provide the full details that were in the full documentation that was available on the website. Copies of the full consultation document and historical report should have been available in the library to allow visitors to see the full context of the consultation.
5. Despite a feasibility study being undertaken to determine if Louise House and the Superintendent’s House could be saved and incorporated into a new development, no designs have been produced to show if a leisure centre could have been fitted in with this development. Many local residents naturally feel angry that this was not presented as an option after the feasibility study was undertaken and concluded that these building could be converted into housing for a small profit.
6. The consultation process took place during school holidays, when many children and parents are away. This will affect the results of the consultation and exclude many of the key users of the pools.
7. A public meeting should have been organised where local residents could have an opportunity to discuss the plans with the council officers and hear the views of other local residents.
8. There has been a lack of clarity for local residents regarding what the consultation is about – housing and leisure facilities or design of buildings and layout. By confusing these two issues it is difficult for the public to know how to respond.
9. We would like to see all the responses to the consultation to get a better idea of the views of local residents before the report goes to mayor and cabinet, so that we can satisfy ourselves that council officers accurately represent the views of local people from this consultation.

Pools Public Meeting - 21st August

Information from Councillor Chris Best:

Public Meeting 7pm Thursday 21 August at the Forest Hill Methodist Church and Centre on Normanton Rd SE23

As a recap - in February 2008 the Mayor of Lewisham approved the redevelopment of the Forest Hill Pools and Louise House site in order to bring new leisure facilities to the area. The Stakeholder Group (an inclusive Group of the key stakeholders including representatives from the Sydenham and Forest Hill Societies, swimmers, schools, residents and traders) held their first meeting in May. At the June meeting the group considered how we can redevelop the space next to Forest Hill's Grade II listed library and considered the feasibility and housing options from the consultants, HLM. The Council is currently consulting local residents on the three concepts that have been produced for the development of a new leisure centre including a six-lane 25-metre pool, learner pool and associated dry leisure and community facilities.

An exhibition was on display at People's Day on 12 July and the full exhibition was outside Forest Hill station on Friday and Saturday 18-19 July following the delivery of 20,000 flyers to homes in Forest Hill, Perry Vale and Sydenham wards. You can view the background papers and options online and take part in the survey at http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/foresthillpools. The exhibition was running at Forest Hill library until 8 August with residents providing feedback on the printed forms on the three options, range of facilities and other comments.

Focus groups are taking place with 'seldom heard groups' in accordance with the Council's consultation strategy, and further active consultation is taking place with local schools, businesses, and swimming clubs. Council officers have offered to meet with representatives from both the Forest Hill and Sydenham Societies in addition to their ongoing involvement with the Forest Hill Pools Stakeholder Group.

As an adjunct to the consultation programme a public meeting has been arranged for Thursday 21 August at the Forest Hill Methodist Church and Centre on Normanton Rd SE23. The meeting will run from 7pm to 9pm.

The evening will include a presentation on the background to the Mayor's decision and will give local residents the opportunity to speak to local councillors and leisure officers about the current proposals. The exhibition which details the three development options will be available, and Council staff will be present to answer queries and to gather feedback on the options that have been presented as part of the consultation.

The Stakeholder Group will be meeting at the end of August to review the feedback from the consultation. Comments from the Stakeholder Group will be included in the report to Mayor and Cabinet on 17 September which is an open meeting starting at 6.30pm at the Town Hall in Catford. The tender for the architects is running in parallel with the consultation so that work on the design can progress once the option is agreed.

We look forward to seeing you on 21 August. If you have any queries about the meeting please contact Hilary Renwick on 8314 6359 - hilary.renwick@lewisham.gov.uk or contact Cllr Chris Best or Cllr John Russell who will be co-chairing the public meeting.

Stanstead Road Community Garden is opened

The Stanstead Strip

Sarah-Jane Honeywell with Julie Sutch

Councillor John Paschoud on the mic

And the band played on

Manor Mount Planning Application

The Forest Hill Society has objected to the latest planning application for 1 Manor Mount. For the sake of brevity I will not produce the full text of the objection (available on request) but below are the main reasons for objecting:

1. The Drawings

The drawings of the proposed development are inadequate and do not show neighbouring properties in relation to the application proposal for 1 Manor Mount.
Without accurate drawings regarding the relationship with neighbouring properties provided as part of the application process and for comment by local residents, this application should not be considered for approval.


2. Underground Water Course

The Horniman hill is riddled with water courses and natural springs, some of which are on or directly adjacent to this property. The excavations necessary for the basement flat could have a significant impact on water courses and cause flooding and subsidence in neighbouring properties.

No adequate land survey had been done to analyse the risk of deep excavations. Before considering this application it would be necessary to for a Land Risk Assessment to be made to find out if it is likely that there is a watercourse or spring in the area. If there is this would make excavations inappropriate and disturb the local balance of both properties.


3. Family Dwellings/Change Of Use

We understand that Lewisham Council has or is in the process of implementing a new policy relating to the conversion of large family dwellings, which would include this property. With this property in a conservation area, we believe that large houses are still required and the inclusion of a three bedroom flat does not fully meet the council policies in this area.


4. Forest Hill Conservation Area

Manor Mount is within the Forest Hill Conservation Area and part of the character of this conservation area is the large Victorian houses. To conserve this character of the area these houses need to be conserved as houses and not divided into flats purely for the profit of potential owners. There continue to be many people willing to pay to live in large houses of this nature and Forest Hill needs these types of properties as well as the many new purpose built flats that are being built in the area.

Victory in Oystergate!

Mayor Steve Bullock has received the following letter from Southern Railways:

Dear Sir Steve Bullock

Firstly, I must apologise for the delay in sending you this letter following the meeting with John Oliver, our Acting Commercial Director last week.

We have now reviewed our operations since the gates went live and taken into account the views expressed at last week’s meeting. As a result we have decided to revise the operations at both stations as follows:

Forest Hill
As from Monday 28 July we will be providing access to both platforms while the gates are in operation between 0600 and 2000 on Mondays to Saturdays. The access point from Perry Vale onto platform 2 will have a member of staff checking and collecting tickets during these hours.

Sydenham
As from Monday 28 July we will provide access to platform 1 for all passengers with a valid ticket from 0630 to 0930 and then from 1600 to 2000 on Mondays to Fridays. There will be a member of staff present to check and collect tickets. Outside of these times during the day (0930-1600) entry and exit will still be available via buzzer entry for those requiring level access on platform 1.

I hope that this new arrangement is seen as a positive move on this issue.

This means that after the campaigning by the Forest Hill Society, Sydenham Society, Steve Bullock, Jim Dowd, Len Duvall, London Passenger Watch, and local councillors we have succeeded in having access to the station during all hours of train operation (I am assuming that the gate will continue to be open after 8pm). Many thanks to all the residents and politicians who helped make this possible.

We will continue to campaign for level access from the Perry Vale side of the station but this is a significant change by Southern Railways which we welcome.

Hat tip: Love Perry Vale

Let's improve Honor Oak Park

A new group is formed called the Honor Oak Park Action Group (HOPAG) with their own website / blog. Their first aim is improvements to the environment around Honor Oak Park station.

The Forest Hill Society wish them the best of luck and look forward to working with them on a range of issues.

Jim Dowd talks in Parliament about Gates at Forest Hill Station

Jim Dowd MP yesterday spoke in parliament about the issue of gates at Forest Hill and Sydenham. His recommendation is in line with the proposals from the Forest Hill Society. See extract below:

With change comes difficulty, as everybody knows. New stations are being fitted with the Oyster card system, which has been hugely successful on the underground network and on London buses. Extending it to the national rail network will be to the advantage of passengers throughout the area and the country, wherever it is adopted. Bringing in the Oyster card service means bringing in gates, which is where the current problem exists. There is a plan at Sydenham and Forest Hill stations to introduce over two phases and by the end of this year automatic gates, which will be brought on line while the Southern Trains franchise is still in existence.

Unfortunately, this is causing many of my constituents considerable inconvenience and has made their lives difficult because of restrictions on the up service from Sydenham and the down service from Forest Hill, requiring people to go to the other side of the station and back over footbridge to get to the service they want. For people with buggies or luggage or with mobility difficulties, that is extremely inconvenient. Everybody understands why the new system is being brought in, but it cannot be right to inconvenience the law-abiding and ticket-buying majority in the hope of catching the fare-evading minority. My constituents certainly do not see it that way.

Fortunately, the elected mayor of Lewisham, Sir Steve Bullock, arranged for me and him to meet senior Southern Trains managers at Forest Hill and Sydenham stations last Friday and, more particularly, for the managers to meet a number of constituents—their customers, passengers, or whatever they are called these days—and to hear from them first hand precisely how difficult their lives have been made by the lack of co-ordination in introducing the programme. As I say, nobody disputes the need to reduce fare evasion and to improve security by ensuring that only genuine passengers have access to both trains and stations. My constituents would agree with that proposition.

However, as the full scheme can be implemented by the end of this year, we are asking Southern Trains—it has agreed to consider this—to revert to the original position of unguarded gates until such time as it can bring in the whole scheme. My constituents will then be able to have access to both the up and down platforms at all times of the day with minimum inconvenience. I hope and expect Southern Trains to respond positively in a short space of time.

South Central Network Franchise Consultation

On behalf of the Forest Hill Society, which represents passengers in the Forest Hill and Honor Oak Park areas, I would like to respond to the South Central Franchise Consultation document. Overall we are pleased with the recommendations of this document which recognises the high level of demand for services from our area and the need to increase the length of trains prior to any rebuilding at London Bridge station related to Thameslink services.

Summary of Recommendations:

1. 12 car trains by the end of 2011
2. Off-peak services to Charing Cross
3. Improved access at Forest Hill station from both sides of the railway
4. No more 2 car trains on the Crystal Palace loop
5. Longer trains on evening and weekend services from London Bridge to Forest Hill
6. Improved off-peak access to Gatwick and Brighton

Length of trains during peak hours

Page 5 refers to 10 car trains running through Sydenham (Forest Hill) from late 2011, whilst page 38 talks about 10 car trains from 2015 with reference to the possibility of 12 car trains being further investigated.

With the expected reduction in services to London Bridge on this line in 2012 it is vital that the 2011 date is confirmed in the final version of the franchise document and we believe that it would be best to introduce 12 car trains at this time rather than just 10 car trains. There are two reasons why this is the best course of action:

1. Extending platforms to 12 car rather than 10 car will add little extra cost and avoid further extensions in the future, required for the Thameslink service and to meet ever increasing demand on the Forest Hill route. For this reason it makes economic sense to upgrade the platforms to 12 car trains rather than only to 10 car trains.
2. The RUS recommends in sections 7.2.5 and 8.3.3 that services are increased to 12 car trains to account for passenger demand when train numbers are reduced in 2012.

We hope that the franchise agreement will take account of the recommendations of the South London RUS and provide 12 car services through Forest Hill at the earliest possible opportunity.

Off peak services to central London

Currently passengers in Forest Hill and Honor Oak Park benefit from direct services from Charing Cross during evenings and weekends. This service was recognised in the draft RUS as being a well utilised off-peak service and provides significant benefits from passengers travelling home from the West End during evenings and weekend.

At present plans are in place to stop running these off-peak services from the beginning of the new franchise. Whilst we understand that this may be the most convenient option for considering the franchising process, it is at the expense of passengers on this line who today benefit from this well utilised off-peak service.

The South London RUS does not go into details of off-peak services, but option 20.4 referred to continuing this off-peak service. Option 20.4 is not dealt with in chapter 5, but in appendix A (page 145) ‘Further investigation recommend regarding off peak services’. These investigations should be regarded as part of the franchising agreement if there is any hope to keep this well utilised service. Our recommendation is to keep this half-hourly service running to Charing Cross off-peak but not at peak times. During peak times we recognise that there is not capacity to take this service but at off-peak times there is capacity today and there will continue to be capacity for the full duration of the franchise period.

With or without the continued service from Charing Cross, the services from London Bridge are often overcrowded at weekends due to short trains (often 4 car). Accurate figures are hard for us to judge regarding the length of trains or the overcrowding on these services, but we would ask that the franchising process look at this issue and consider running longer trains during the off-peak periods – evenings and weekends.

Station Management and gating policy

We welcome the transfer of management for the stations at Forest Hill and Honor Oak Park to Transport for London and hope that this will result in improvements to the station.

In recent months Southern Railways, under instruction form TfL, have begun a gating programme that has already impeded access to stations at Sydenham and Forest Hill. It is an unhappy irony that these changes are being made at the same time as the rail industry is working to improve access to stations throughout the network, including Forest Hill station in 2009-2011.

In the case of Forest Hill station the southbound platform no longer has a direct entrance or exit before 3pm, forcing all passengers to cross over the footbridge. For customers with limited mobility living on the east side of the station they are now forced to use 4 sets of stairs (under the underpass and then over the footbridge) rather than the single set of stairs which they needed to negotiate until June 2008. For many people with limited mobility or with pushchairs this has significantly reduced accessibility at Forest Hill station and many now drive to Sydenham or Honor Oak Park with better accessibility.

We have asked for a number of different options to be considered, however, Southern Railways whilst recognising the value of these proposals have failed to take advantage of these suggestions. We hope that this attitude to customer service and public consultation will be reflected when considering any bid from this company.

Moving forward, this responsibility will pass directly to TfL rather than the franchise holder but we hope that in assigning this responsibility that the access to stations is made clear to TfL who have been complicit in the gating scheme that has been implemented. In the case of Forest Hill the importance of the Perry Vale exit must be recognised, an exit that is used by more customers in the evening peak than the main station. It has been recognised that an entrance in the Perry Vale car park would be the best solution to accessibility issues at Forest Hill, but until that can be implemented we believe that the gate must be available (either open or on a buzzer) at all times that trains are running.

Crystal Palace - Victoria Loop

We welcome morning peak services from London Bridge via Forest Hill to Victoria as bringing an important route into better use whilst avoiding the centre of London and congestion on the Jubilee and District Line.

At present some of the off-peak services from Victoria to London Bridge via Crystal Palace run as 2 car trains, but these can be very busy during early evenings. We would like to see a minimum of 4 car trains on this route during off-peak times, with a minimum of 8 car trains during peak period (rising to 10 or 12 car trains by 2012).

Services to Brighton and Gatwick from Forest Hill

Changes planned to services from Forest Hill will mean that there are no longer direct trains to East Croydon making travelling to Gatwick and Brighton from South London significantly harder. Passengers will have to change at Norwood Junction and again at East Croydon for trains south.

We would welcome solutions that would allow for some off-peak services to take customers to Gatwick airport without 2 changes of train, possibly by stopping more Gatwick services at Norwood Junction to allow for interchange or alternatively running services from Forest Hill to East Croydon during off-peak times. Without improvements to connections from South London to Gatwick airport, there will be more people travelling by road to Gatwick airport rather than by train. With the potential of the South Central and Gatwick Express franchise being run by a single company, it should be possible to provide better connections between various services.

For Gatwick the priority would be daytime, off-peak services, when most of the flights are leaving and arriving. For Brighton we would like to see weekend services that allow South Londoners to travel directly to the coast by train. With more flats in London being built car free, the rising cost of petrol, and warmer summers, a day out to the sea by train could become popular once again. However, it is important that these are fast/semi-fast services from Croydon to Brighton. These services would be popular with families, students, and anybody else looking for a chance to escape the city for a day or a weekend. Ticket deals including overnight accommodation, similar to those available to Eurostar customer would also make it easy for people to spend a night and benefit further from the extent of the South Central franchise area.